Summary
Rule 158 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol.
I, empowers the General Managers to make rules with regard to the non-gazetted railway servants provided they are not inconsistent with any rules made by the President or the Railway Board. The Railway Board brought out a circular dated 22.4.1963 laying down the rules for determination of seniority of workshop staff employed in the Production Control organisation and declaring all posts therein as ex-cadre. Due to the stiff opposition of organised labour the said circular could not be implemented in the Kharagpur workshop. The Superintendent, however, after discussing the question with the organised labour issued a memorandum on 21.7.1973 stating that all posts in the PCO would be cadre posts. Subsequently, by a circular dated 9.7.1978 the Railway Board declared that the staff from shop-floors posted in the PCO would receive special pay of 10% of their pay but this would not be available to the staff who were permanently absorbed in the PCO or directly recruited in the PCO. Upon this, representations were made by the labour to the Railway Board for implementing its circular dated 22.4.1963 so that the staff of the Pco would be eligible for the special pay. In pursuance of the meetings held with the labour, the memorandum dated 4-5/l0/1979 was issued which declared that the Railway Board's circular of 1963 would be implemented in the PCO and that all posts would be treated as ex-cadre posts. By another circular issued on 42613.9.1984 the Railway Board allowed the PCO at the Integral Coach Factory, Southern Railway, to continue on cadre basis.Aggrieved by the said circular, the petitioners, who at the relet time were all employees of PCO at Kharagpur, carried the matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal and contended; (i) that their posts could not be declared as ex-cadre because vested rights which had accrued in their favour could not be affected, and (ii) they could not be treated differently from those of the Integral Coach Factory. This was hostile discrimination and amounted to violation of their rights. The Tribunal rejected both the contentions.Dismissing the special leave petition,^HELD: 1. Administrative re-organisation is permissible and as a result of the same rights may be affected but the vested rights could not be taken away. In the instant case inasmuch as the memorandum dated 21st July, 1973 inconsistent with the circular issued by the Railway Board in 1963 no right vested in the petitioners and hence no question of affecting vested rights arise. [429C-D]T.R. Kapur & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [1986] JT 1092 referred to.2.1 Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class disposition but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of disposition which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the disposition. [430A-B]D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165, referred to.2.2 The circular of 1984 of the Railway Board was issued pursuant to the negotiations with the staff in the Departmental Council of Ministry of Railways. The existing arrangement in the PCO of Integral Coach Factory was not disturbed because the recognised Unions there did not want it to be so disturbed; whereas in the PCO of Kharagpur the recognised Unions had already agreed that the Railway Board's circular dated 22.4.1963 would be implemented and that all posts in that PCO would be treated as ex-cadre.[429F-G]427 2.3 The Railway Board is fully competent to bring about necessary changes in the staff pattern of the various units under its control for the purpose of steamlining the organisation and improving the efficiency of the administration. There was, therefore, a good ground for this differentiation which has a rational nexus with the object of streamlining the organisation. This differentiation cannot be condemned as violative of the rule of equality. It does not amount to hostile discrimination. [429G-H]See the full content of this document
Extract
S.K. Chakraborthy And Ors. VS. Union Of India & Ors.
PETITIONER: S.K. CHAKRABORTHY AND ORS.Vs.RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT11/07/1988BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)SHARMA, L.M. (J)CITATION: 1988 AIR 1645 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 425 1988 SCC (3) 575 JT 1988 (3) 76 1988 SCALE (2)31CITATOR INFO : R 1991 SC2080 (9)ACT: Civil Services; Indian Railway Establishment Code,Vol.I Rule 158-Production Control Organisation, Kharagpur- Memorandum No. 476-13-l0065 dated 4-5/l01/1979 directing...
See the full content of this document