Pritam Singh and ors. Vs. Railway Board and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. sections 300 & 149; murder unlawful assembly common object quarrels between accused and deceased in the instant case the dispute between the parties which was said to be the motive for committing the offences was an ornament . first of the quarrels between the accused no.1 and the deceased took place a fortnight prior to the date of occurrence. appellants-accused were not involved. accused no. 1 on the one hand and the deceased on the other quarrelled on the second d occasion. a scuffle took place. the wife of the accused no.1 and complainant, friend of deceased tried to intervene. deceased allegedly at that time touched the person of the wife of accused no.1. they went to lodge their respective complaints but then the matter was settled. accused no.1 therefore may have a grudge as against the deceased, who had touched his wife. it is unlikely that the appellants-accused who were wholly unarmed and who were even not known to the deceased would form a common object to cause his death. they were not armed with weapons. specific overt acts had not been attributed against them. allegations made in the fir show that whereas the accused nos. 3 and 6 were armed with sword, accused no.2 had a knife. the knife was used by accused no.2 all of a sudden. evidently nobody wanted to cause any serious injury to others. the medical evidence does not specifically mention as to how the wounds were caused. the size of the wound shows that nobody had used any weapon with much force. the wounds might have also been caused during scuffle. even the identity of the appellants-accused was in doubt held, in the facts and circumstances the test of common object could not be applied. thus no case could be said to have been made out as against the appellants to arrive at a conclusion that they were guilty of commission of an offence under sections 302/149. the court would assume that they were guilty under section 452 i.p.c. but they have remained in custody for sufficiently long time. therefore appellants were set at liberty. - mange lal rastogi passed the examination as far back in the year 1960 whereas the appellants successively failed in the examinations and ultimately in the year 1970 they passed the said examination.orderv.n. khare, j.1 . the short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether appellants-before us are entitled to the same benefit as was accorded to one mange lal rastogi. the appellants are senior to mange lal rastogi in clerk grade-ii. for promotion to the post of clerk grade-i, necessarily, an employee working in clerk grade-ii has to pass the examination. it is only on passing the examination that one gets promoted to the post of clerk grade-i. mange lal rastogi passed the examination as far back in the year 1960 whereas the appellants successively failed in the examinations and ultimately in the year 1970 they passed the said examination. mange lal rastogi was promoted to the post of clerk grade-i in the year 1968 on long term vacancy and was subsequently reverted to the post of clerk grade-ii in april, 1969 in order to make room for promotion of his seniors. the appellants on passing the departmental examination were also promoted in the year 1970 to clerk grade-i post against short term vacancies. however, subsequently the appellants have also reverted to the posts of clerk grade-ii. the railway board issued an order dated 25.9.69, which is read as under:the board has considered the matter and has decided that in respect of leave vacancies other than those of lpr promotions of clerks grade-ii as clerks grade-i in the accounts department should be made on the basis of the prescribed percentages laid down for qualified and unqualified staff subject to the proviso that the staff so promoted would revert on the expiry of such vacancies irrespective of their inter-se seniority in the cadre.2. it is on the strength of this letter, mange lal rastogi made a representation to the railway board stating therein that, had the said letter been issued in april, 1969, he would have not reverted from the post of clerk grade-i. the railway board accepted the representation of mange lal rastogi and directed that the period from 1.4.1968 to 25.9.1969 when he worked as clerk grade-i shall be counted for increment in the post of clerk grade-i. in view of the said benefit accorded to mange lal rastogi, the appellants herein filed original application claiming the same benefits before the central administrative tribunal. the said original application was rejected and against that judgment and order the appellants are in appeal before us.3. learned counsel urged that the appellants were entitled to count the period from the date of promotion to the date of reversion in the post of clerk grade-i for the purposes of increment as was done in the case of mange lal rastogi and the respondents have unreasonably denied the said benefit to them. in fact, they were treated by uneven hands and, therefore, the action of respondents is discriminatory. we do not find any substance in the argument. as noted earlier, mange lal rastogi was promoted to the post of clerk grade-i against long term vacancy. he was made to revert to clerk grade-ii post in order to make room for the seniors. if the board's letter of 25.9.1969 had come in april, mange lal rastogi would have not reverted to the post of clerk grade-ii. the appellants case is entirely different. the appellants were promoted to the post of clerk grade-i against the short term vacancy and in view of the board's letter dated 25.9.1969 after the expiry of the period of the vacancy the appellants working as clerk grade-i were liable to be reverted to the post of clerk grade-ii.4. for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these two appeals. they are, accordingly, dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

V.N. Khare, J.

1 . The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether appellants-before us are entitled to the same benefit as was accorded to one Mange Lal Rastogi. The appellants are senior to Mange Lal Rastogi in Clerk Grade-II. For promotion to the post of Clerk Grade-I, necessarily, an employee working in Clerk Grade-II has to pass the examination. It is only on passing the examination that one gets promoted to the post of Clerk Grade-I. Mange Lal Rastogi passed the examination as far back in the year 1960 whereas the appellants successively failed in the examinations and ultimately in the year 1970 they passed the said examination. Mange Lal Rastogi was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade-I in the year 1968 on long term vacancy and was subsequently reverted to the post of Clerk Grade-II in April, 1969 in order to make room for promotion of his seniOrs. The appellants on passing the departmental examination were also promoted in the year 1970 to Clerk Grade-I post against short term vacancies. However, subsequently the appellants have also reverted to the posts of Clerk Grade-II. The Railway Board issued an order dated 25.9.69, which is read as under:

The Board has considered the matter and has decided that in respect of leave vacancies other than those of LPR promotions of Clerks Grade-II as Clerks Grade-I in the Accounts Department should be made on the basis of the prescribed percentages laid down for qualified and unqualified staff subject to the proviso that the staff so promoted would revert on the expiry of such vacancies irrespective of their inter-se seniority in the cadre.

2. It is on the strength of this letter, Mange Lal Rastogi made a representation to the Railway Board stating therein that, had the said letter been issued in April, 1969, he would have not reverted from the post of Clerk Grade-I. The Railway Board accepted the representation of Mange Lal Rastogi and directed that the period from 1.4.1968 to 25.9.1969 when he worked as Clerk Grade-I shall be counted for increment in the post of Clerk Grade-I. In view of the said benefit accorded to Mange Lal Rastogi, the appellants herein filed Original Application claiming the same benefits before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said Original Application was rejected and against that judgment and order the appellants are in appeal before us.

3. Learned Counsel urged that the appellants were entitled to count the period from the date of promotion to the date of reversion in the post of Clerk Grade-I for the purposes of increment as was done in the case of Mange Lal Rastogi and the respondents have unreasonably denied the said benefit to them. In fact, they were treated by uneven hands and, therefore, the action of respondents is discriminatory. We do not find any substance in the argument. As noted earlier, Mange Lal Rastogi was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade-I against long term vacancy. He was made to revert to Clerk Grade-II post in order to make room for the seniOrs. If the Board's letter of 25.9.1969 had come in April, Mange Lal Rastogi would have not reverted to the post of Clerk Grade-II. The appellants case is entirely different. The appellants were promoted to the post of Clerk Grade-I against the short term vacancy and in view of the Board's letter dated 25.9.1969 after the expiry of the period of the vacancy the appellants working as Clerk Grade-I were liable to be reverted to the post of Clerk Grade-II.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these two appeals. They are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.