M L GROVER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI M.L. Grover has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and has sought the following relief:-

(2.) The applicant was initially appointed as a Traffic Signaller in the year 1950, in the erstwhile Bombay Baroda Central India Railway vide letter dated 21.09.1950 by the Chief Traffic Manager, Churchgate, Bombay, on behalf of the General Manager. He got an opportunity to appear for selection for the post of Traffic Apparentice in the year 1956 by the Railway Service Commission. He was selected for the same and was imparted the requisite training of 3 years. He was posted as Assistant Station Master in the grade of Rs. 205-280.

(3.) DURING the year 1976 to 1978 he worked at Phulera Junction and thereafter transferred to Bharatpur on the post of Station Superintendent. At Phulera Junction, he was the Vice Chairman of Western Railway Employees Union, Phulera Branch and he also continued to remain the Vice Chairman of said Employees Union at Bharatpur Branch till passing of the impugned order. However, he remained very sincere and honest person while carrying out the Trade Union activities but on the other side certain officers developed ill-will towards him and took recourse to victimisation, may be curb the union activities/ movements. In work side, he was considered to be in outstanding and of a very high merit and he earned appreciations from Shri S.S. Rana, R.C. Sethi and Shri Jagdish Chandra, the then Divisional Superintendents, Jaipur. The applicant has further submitted that in the year 1977 one Shri I.D. Ameen, Divisional Superintendent came on visit on 02.12.1977 to Phulera Junction and asked the application not to participate in the Trade Union activities. The applicant was not inclined to adhear to the same and expressed his inability to betray the confidence of the members of the union reposed hir It is submitted that the answer given by the applicant annoyed the said Shri Ameen and perhaps hurt his ego for unknown reasons. The applicant was warned by him and it was told that he should be prepared to face the consequence of his action.