9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of memorandum transferring lien of respondents to another department. 2. Interpretation of Railway Fundamental Rules regarding transfer of employees. 3. Impact of transfer on seniority and chances of promotion. 4. Availability of vacancies in the posts to which employees were transferred. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the validity of a memorandum transferring the lien of certain employees to another department within the railway service. The appellant, a Depot clerk, challenged the transfer of respondents 4 to 8 to the Stores Department, arguing that it adversely affected his promotion prospects. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, prompting the appeal. The court examined Rule 2003 of the Railway Fundamental Rules, defining terms like 'cadre' and 'lien.' It concluded that the employees, including the appellant and respondents 4 to 8, were entitled to a lien on the posts they were confirmed in since August 15, 1947. The absorption of the temporary staff from the Food Supply Organisation into different departments was in line with the rules and necessitated the transfers. The judgment delved into Rule 2007, which outlines the conditions under which a railway servant retains a lien on a post. It clarified that the competent authority had the power to transfer employees between permanent posts under Rule 2011, with the transferred employee entitled to a lien in the new post. The court emphasized that the transfers were within the rules and did not violate the Fundamental Rules governing railway employees. The appellant's argument that the transfers were made without vacancies in the new posts was deemed unsubstantiated. The court highlighted that the rules permitted transfers between posts within the same cadre, ensuring that employees retained their seniority and entitlements. Consequently, the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
