Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
AMAR DEO PRAKASH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT19/02/1990
BENCH:
RANGNATHAN, S.
BENCH:
RANGNATHAN, S.
SAIKIA, K.N. (J)
CITATION:
1990 AIR 1040 1990 SCR (1) 450
1990 SCC Supl. 641 JT 1990 (2) 570
1990 SCALE (1)261
ACT:
Railway Establishment Manual--Rules 202 and 321 and
Railway Board Circulars dated July 29, 1983 and December 20,
1983--’Traffic Stream’ and ’Control Stream’ mass upgradation
and restructuring of the cadres--Validity of for purposes of
inter-se seniority.
HEADNOTE:
These writ petitions have been fried by Group ’C’ (class
III) employees of the Railways working in its Transportation
(Traffic) Department. The said Department has different
streams e.g. ’Control Stream’ and ’Traffic Stream’ and the
employees working therein have different scales of pay. For
purposes of their promotion to Group B posts, it was neces-
sary to fix their inter se seniority, as only those employ-
ees from the different streams could be considered for
promotion as would fall within the zone of consideration as
per seniority list. As the zone of consideration is deter-
mined with reference to the number of vacancies in Group B
for which selection is held, at any point of time, the
position of the employee in the combined seniority list of
all the streams is important. The zone of consideration of
the employees for promotion Is fixed in the order of the
combined seniority of the employees from the different
streams. The Department prior to the implementation of the
recommendations of the Third Pay Commission fixed the inter
se seniority of the employees of Group C employees on the
basis of the grade i.e. employees working In a higher grade
on a regular basis were treated senior to those working in
the lower grade and the said principle worked well until the
enforcement of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commis-
sion w.e.f. 1.1.1973, when higher or lower scales of pay
came to be fixed in respect of certain posts which were
having the same scale of pay upto 31.12.1972. This presented
difficulty in fixing the inter se seniority of the employees
and the Railway Board in order to resolve the difficulty
issued circulars from time to time indicating how their
seniority should be fixed but for some reason or the other,
the dissatisfaction amongst the employees in the matter of
seniority continued. Being aggrieved by the experiments
which according to the petitioners only resulted in chaos
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
and confusion, employees of the Control Stream have flied
the writ petition on the Issue of a combined seniority list
published by the administration on the basis
451
of instructions on 15.6.85, as they found themselves exclud-
ed from the panel of staff to be taken into consideration
for promotion to Group B. They pray that the circular dt.
6.1.84 and the follow up action taken culminating in the
Selection List be set aside. The petitioner challenge the
validity of two circulars issued by the Board, one on
29.7.83 and the other on 26.1.2.1983, restructuring the
cadres as discriminatory as according to them they envisage
’mass upgradation’ to their detriment. The question for
determination is whether the principle adopted on the
strength of these circulars for fixing the inter se seniori-
ty of these employees is proper.
Dismissing the writ petitions with liberty to the Peti-
tioners to move the Central Administrative Tribunal, if so
advised with fuller facts, this Court,
HELD: The inequity is not apparent. Having to deal with
two different streams, differently placed, the Government
has to find out an equitable solution and it has been grop-
ing towards it. One method would perhaps have been to have
fixed quotas for promotion from each of the streams but that
is not necessarily the only method. An alternative method is
being attempted here and the principle that grades of
Rs.700-900 and above should be considered together being
conceded-the Department is trying to give some weightage by
granting upgradation to each stream based on its total
strength in order to balance the promotional chances in both
the streams. It is possible that some individual cases may
be affected but no answer to the question whether any class
discrimination has resulted can be given unless fuller
details are available and the practical impact of the latest
position is placed before the Court. [463A-C]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11704
of 1985 etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
R.P. Gupta for the Petitioners.
V.C. Mahajan, Ms. A. Subhashini, B.K. Prasad, C. Ramesh
and Hemant Sharma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATHAN, J. These two writ petitions were filed as
452
early as 1985 but they are still at the admission stage.
However notices have been issued to the respondents and we
have heard counsel on both sides. As both the writ petitions
relate to the same subject matter, it will be convenient to
dispose of them by a common order and we proceed to do so.
The controversy in these writ petitions is as to the
proper principle for determination of seniority in the
Transportation (Traffic) Department of the Indian Railways.
Though the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11704 of 1985
belong to the Central Railways, the principle to be deter-
mined will have application over all nine Railways in the
country and is being agitated in Writ Petition No. 12802 of
1985 by the All India Train Controller’s Association. The
officials with whom we are concerned in these writ petitions
occupy Group C (Class III) posts in the above department.
The question of their inter se seniority has become material
for their promotion to Group B (Class II) posts which really
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
form the lowest rung of the management cadre. 75% of the
vacancies arising in Group B (Class II) posts in each de-
partment are filled in by promotion on selection from among
Group C (Class III) employees of the department on the basis
of seniority-cum-merit. The difficulty in determination of
the inter se seniority arises because there are different
streams of eligible Group C (Class III) employees, occupying
posts with different scales of pay, who have to be consid-
ered for selection to Group B posts. As only those employees
from the different streams can be considered as fail within
the zone of consideration as per seniority and as the zone
of consideration is determined with reference to the number
of vacancies in Group B for which the selection is held at
any point of time, the position of an employee in the com-
bined seniority list of all the streams assumes great impor-
tance.
We are concerned with the selections for appointment to
three Group B posts in the Operating Branch of the Traffic
and Transportation Department. These are: Assistant Operat-
ing Superintendent, Assistant Traffic Superintendent and
Station Superintendent. The four Group C streams which have
the avenue of promotion to the above group B posts are: (1)
The Control Stream, which consists of the Chief Controller,
the Deputy Chief Controller and the Section Controller; (2)
The Traffic Stream, which comprises of the Station Master,
the Yard Master, Traffic Inspector and Signaller; (3) The
Ministerial Stream, consisting of office staff and (4) The
Running Stream, consisting of Guards. We are here concerned
only with the question of inter se seniority between the
employees in the Control
453
Stream and those in the Traffic Stream.
As mentioned earlier, there are several grades and
scales of pay prevailing in each of these streams. It will
be helpful to tabulate them here for convenient reference:
Control Stream
Post Scale of Pay
Pre 1931 I Pay II Pay III Pay
Commission Commission Commission
Chief Controller360-500 450-575 450-575 8501040/1200
Deputy Chief 400-500 300-400 370-475 700-900
Controller
Section Con-
troller Grade I 300-350 260-350 335-425 )
) 470-750
Grade II 200-300 200-300 270-380 )
Traffic Stream
Post Scale of Pay
Pre 1931 I Pay II Pay III Pay
Commission Commission Commission
Station Supdt./120-165/)
Jn. S.M./CYM/80-160/) 300-400 450-575 700-900
TI (Higher) 200-300 )
Stn. Master (Higher)
Dy. Supdt. 80-160 300-400 370-475 550-750
/YM/TI (Lower)
SM (Lower) 60-65 80-170 130-225 330-560
Grade and
others 80-120 100-185 205-330 425-640
150-225
200-300 250-380 455-700
260-350 335-425 550-750
The zone of consideration of the employees for promotion
is fixed in the order of the combined seniority of the
employees from the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
454
different streams. In each of the streams, seniority depends
on the grade. Normally, employees working in a higher grade
on a regular basis are senior to those working in the lower
grade. To illustrate, the highest Group C grade was Rs.450-
575 followed by the grades Rs.370475, Rs.335-485, Rs.335-425
and so on. (We are referring here to the old pay scales
which have since been revised). The employees working in the
grade Rs.450-575 were therefore placed on the top followed
by those in the grades of Rs.370-475, Rs.335-485 and
Rs.335-425. This principle for determination of inter se
seniority worked very well till 31.12.72 as the higher
scales of pay in both the streams was the same. According to
the department, it became difficult to follow this principle
when, consequent on the acceptation and implementation of
the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with effect
from 1.1. 1973, higher or lower scales of pay came to be
fixed in respect of certain posts which were having the same
scale of pay upto 31.12.1972. For example, the scale of pay
of Rs.450-575 held by Station Masters and Traffic Inspectors
in the Traffic Stream upto 31.12.72 was upgraded to the
scale Rs.700-900 with effect from 1.1.73. On the other hand,
in the case of Chief Controllers of the Control Stream, the
same scale of Rs.450-575 was replaced by a scale of Rs.840-
1040/1200. Similarly, in the case of Station Masters and
Inspectors in the grade of Rs.370-475 in the Traffic Stream,
the replacement was by the scale of RS.550-750 while in the
case of Deputy Chief Controllers on the scale Rs.370-475,
the replacement scale was Rs.700-900. Thus the Control
Stream gained an upper hand in the matter of seniority and,
consequently, of promotions.
In an attempt to restore some balance and parity between
the employees of the different streams, the Railway Board
issued certain instructions on 26th October, 1976. As per
these instructions, the inter se seniority of the staff
working in the grade of Rs.700-900 and the grades,above it
in the different streams was to be based on the total length
of service rendered by an employee in all the grades. This
did not satisfy all sections of the staff and difficulties
were also experienced in applying the instructions. For
example, a Deputy Chief Controller, who had been in the
grade of Rs.370-475 upto 31.12.72 and was placed on Rs.700-
900 from 1.1.73, gained an advantage over his collegues in
the other stream viz. the Station Masters and Traffic In-
spectors. The matter was therefore reconsidered and modified
instructions were issued on 11.7.77. According to these
instructions, for purposes of drawing out the combined
seniority of Group C employees from different streams, the
services rendered in the top-most scale in one stream would
be considered equivalent to the service rendered in the
455
top-most scale in the other streams, even though the top-
most scale in the two streams might be different. This rule
also produced anomalies. For example, if in one stream, the
top-most scale was Rs.700-900, in another Rs.550-750 and in
yet another Rs.840-1040, the length of service rendered in
all these grades by the employees was stated to be the basis
to determine the combined seniority. Thus an employee having
ten years of service in the top-most scale of Rs.550-750 in
one stream would rank senior to another having slightly less
than ten years of service in the top-most scale of Rs.700-
900 in another stream. The Department, therefore, issued
revised instructions in August’78/ February’79. As per these
instructions, where the top-most scale prior to 1.1.1973 has
been replaced by two different scales after 1.1.73, one
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
higher and the other lower, service rendered in the lower
scale will be notionally stepped up as if the service had
been rendered in the higher scale. For example, the grade of
Rs.450-575 was replaced by Rs.8401040 for the Controllers
and Rs.700-900 for Station Masters and Traffic Inspectors.
While drawing up the combined seniority, the service ren-
dered in the grade of Rs.700-900 by the Station Masters and
Traffic Inspectors was to be treated as service rendered in
the grade Rs.840-1040. Similarly, the pre-revised grade of
Rs.370-475 had given rise to two scales, namely, Rs.700-900
and Rs.550-750, and, in that case, the service rendered in
the grade Rs.550-750 was notionally treated as rendered in
grade Rs.700-900 for drawing up the combined seniority. This
principle did not work well either. It seems the circulars
of 11.7.77 and August’78 were quashed by the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 55 of 1980 by its order dated 14.12.83. In
the meantime, detailed consideration of the issues was
undertaken in consultation with the federations of organised
labour and it was finally decided that the combined seniori-
ty for purposes of Group B selection should be determined on
the basis of the total length of service rendered by employ-
ees in any or in all the grades commencing from Rs.700-900
and above and these instructions were issued on 5.3.83. In
January 1984. further instructions were issued which, while
maintaining the principles laid down on 5.3.83, provided
protection to senior employees, who got superseded in a
stream for promotion to the higher nongazetted grade in that
stream. For example, if an employee in grade of Rs.700-900
supersedes one of his seniors in promotion to the grade of
Rs.840-1040 within the stream, he would control the seniori-
ty of the employee whom he had superseded. Such a superseded
employee would be put to hardship when the combined seniori-
ty is drawn up along with employees from the other streams
for purposes of selection to Group B. In order to avoid the
situation of a senior employee being subjected to such
disability, instructions were issued on 6.1. 1984 that
456
an employee who supersedes his senior will be credited with
the service of the senior whom he had superseded. Aggrieved
by these experiments which, according to them, only resulted
in chaos and confusion, 45 employees of the Control Stream
filed WP 11704/85 when, on the issue of a list published by
the administration on the basis of these instructions on
15.6.85, they found themselves excluded from the panel of
staff to be taken into consideration for promotion to Group
B. They prayed that the circular of 6. 1.84 and the follow-
up action culminating in the Selection List be also set
aside.
The petitioners are also aggrieved by a different set of
steps initiated by the Railway Board. A further discrimina-
tion against the control stream, it is alleged, has resulted
from two circulars issued by the Board, one on 29.7.83 and
the other on 26.12.83. These circulars envisaged, what the
petitioners call, "mass upgradations" and what the circulars
call a "restructuring of the cadres".
The earlier of the two circulars applied to the traffic
stream. In so far as is relevant for our present purposes,
the "upgradation" was on the following lines:
----------------------------------------------------------
Name of Existing Revised Revised Percentage Rema-
post scale Designation Scale of posts marks
----------------------------------------------------------
Yard Masters 455/700 Dy. Chief 700-900 20%
/Asst. Yard Yard Masters
Masters
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
Yard Masters 550-750 Chief Yard 840-1040 10% of
Masters post in
scale of
700-900
Station 455-750 Station 700-900 10%
Master Supdt.
Dy. Station 350-750 Station 840-1040 10% of
Supdt./ Supdt. posts in
Station scale of
Master Rs.700-900
2 Separate 700-900 43.5% This we
Cadre of (10% of told, has
Station these’ll not been
457
Masters/ carry scale given
Asstt. of Rs.840- effect
Station 1040 to.
Superin-
tendants
The circular stated that this restructuring will be with
reference to the sanctioned strength as on 1.8.83. The
staff, who will be placed in the revised grade in terms of
these orders will be eligible to draw pay on the higher
grades from 1.8.83 with benefit of proforma promotion from
1.8.82. It was made clear that the benefit of proforma
fixation will be admissible only to the staff who are placed
in the vacancies arising directly as a result of these
restructuring orders. The date of proforma fixation has
later been shifted, from 1.8.82 to 1.8.83 by a circular
dated 13.7. 1987.
The second circular, dated 20.12.1983 pertained to the
control stream. The restructuring was on the basis of the
cadre strength as on 1.1.84 and the revision of scales was
also to be effective from 1.1.84. The pattern of restruc-
ture, in so far as it is relevant for our present purposes,
is set out thus in the schedule:
Existing Grade & Posts Existing Revised
percentage percentage
-----------------------------------------------------------
(i) 470-750 Not laid 15
(Section Controllers) down
(ii) 700-900 " 58 ]
(Dy. Chief Controllers) ]
]
]
]
(iii) 340-1040 " 23 ] 85
(Chief Controller- ]
Gr. II) ]
]
]
(iv) 840-1200 " 4 ]
(Chief Controller-
Gr. II)
458
It was made clear that the cadre has been restructured
keeping in view additional duties, responsibilities and
heavier workload in some of the charges and that the revised
grades were to be given to employees eligible therefore on
such considerations in their existing positions.
Reference must be made to two more circumstances before
we deal with the contentions urged before us. The first is
that the circular of 6.1.84 referred to above which, accord-
ing to the counsel for the petitioner introduced the princi-
ple of "chance seniority" was quashed by the Central Admin-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
istrative Tribunal by its order dated 5.2.1988. A copy of
this order has not been made available to us. Secondly,
consequent on the said decision of the Tribunal, the Railway
Board issued certain instructions on 22.12.88 which reads
thus:
"Consequent upon the judgment given by the Central Adminis-
trative Tribunal in connection with the above, matter has
been reviewed in consultation with the representatives of
the recognised organised federations and it has been decided
in partial modification of the orders contained in Railway
Board’s letters ..... dated 28.5.83 and 6.11.84 that the
integrated seniority of group C employees for promotion
to group B posts should be determined on the basis of con-
solidated length of non-fortuitous service rendered in the
grade of Rs.700-900/2000-3200 and above ignoring promotions
to the grade of Rs.840-1040/23753500 ...... "
It may be mentioned that the petitioners were fully
satisfied with the circular of 5.3.83 which according to
them, gave effect to rule 321 of the Indian Railway Estab-
lishment Manual. According to them, this equilibrium was
unjustifiably disturbed by the circulars issued subsequent-
ly. The principal grievance urged before us by learned
counsel for the petitioner was that, as a result of the
restructuring orders read with the order reckoning all
persons working in salary grades of Rs.700-900 and above as
one group for determining seniority, the control stream
staff has been adversely affected to a considerable extent.
He points out that persons in the Traffic Stream who entered
the supervisory grade of Rs.470-750 were placed in the grade
of Rs.700-900 much later than the dates when those in the
control stream entered the corresponding scale of Rs.455-700
will gain seniority over the latter. He asks us to compare
for this purpose the positions of officers in the control
stream with seniority positions Nos. 90 to 190 with those
occupying seniority positions Nos. 61 to 208 in the traffic
459
stream. He contends that the staff employed in the control
stream lose both monetarily as well as in terms of seniority
by being placed in the scale of Rs.700-900 only w.e.f.
1.1.84 as compared to those of the traffic stream who re-
ceive such promotions and pay scales w.e.f. 1.8.83. Leaving
aside the question of monetary benefits for the time being,
the submissions are:
(i) that seniority should be determined on the total length
of service as envisaged in rules 202 and 321 of the Indian
Railways’ Establishment Manual, which read thus:
"202--For selection to class II posts or Civil Engg. Trans-
portation (power) and Mechanical Branch, Transportation
(traffic) and Commercial, Signal and Telecommunication,
Electric and Stores Department.
(i) Only permanent staff will be eligible
(ii) all staff in grade Rs.335-425 and above provided they
have rendered a minimum of 3 years non-fortuitous service
after reaching the stage of Rs.335 either in those grades or
in a lower grade.
321--Relative Seniority of employees in an intermediate
grade belonging to different seniority units appearing for a
selection/non-selection post in higher grade.
’When a post (selection as well as non-selection) is filled
by considering staff of different seniority units, the total
length of continuous service in the same or equivalent grade
held by the employee shall be determining factor for assign-
ing inter-seniority irrespective of the date of confirmation
of an employee with lesser length of continuous service as
compared to another unconfirmed employees with longer length
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
of continuous service. This is subject to the proviso that
only non-fortuitous service should be taken in account for
this purpose."
(ii) that if all the grades in the eligible groups are to be
clubbed together, the seniority should be reckoned as and
from the date of entry into the lowest of the grades in
Group ’C’ (class III) viz. Rs.470-750/455-700;
460
(iii) that even if the mass upgradations are to be upheld on
principle, they must be directed to be made effective from
the same date (whether it be 1.8.83 or 1.1.84) in respect of
both the streams and should not be on different dates.
(iv) that the whole object and purpose of these circulars is
to obliterate the effect of the recommendations of the Third
(and even the Fourth) Pay Commissions, after assessing the
duties and responsibilities of the staff in both streams,
that the staff on the control stream deserve higher scales
although these recommendations have been duly accepted and
implemented by the Government.
According to the learned counsel, the traffic stream has a
huge strength and a powerful union and, pressurised by their
numbers, the Railway Board is attempting to take away,
indirectly, the benefits given to the control stream by the
Pay Commission’s recommendations and that too at a point of
time when a fresh Pay Commission was in the process of being
constituted. Counsel also alleged that the All India Con-
trollers’ Association (which has filed writ petition No.
12802 on similar lines) has not been consulted at any stage
and these circulars are being issued at the behest of the
unions of the traffic staff and despite the representations
and protests of the comparatively weaker union of the con-
trol staff.
On the other hand, Sri V.C. Mahajan, learned counsel for
the Union of India, submitted that the petitioners have not
placed any data before the Court to make out a case of
discrimination. He submits that after the Writ Petitions
were filed in 1985 the Department has issued a circular
dated 27.12.88 and a combined seniority list in March 1989.
The petitioners have not taken any steps to amend the Writ
Petition to challenge this circular or this list or to show
in what respect and to what extent the rights of the peti-
tioners have been prejudiced by the restructuring orders.
Turning to the "restructuring" circulars, counsel points out
that in this case the Government has been hard put to evolve
an equitable formula for fair promotional chances to the two
sets of people in question. Various attempts had been made
earlier but they were not successful. Finally the present
formula has been evolved after consulting all the concerned
unions. It is not correct, he says, to say that the deci-
sions have been taken without consulting the representatives
of the Controlling Stream. It is submitted that, having
regard to the few posts at the top of the scale, the Traffic
Stream had been complaining of inadequate promotional oppor-
tunities. The
461
Government has tried to solve the problem as best as it
could and counsel refers to the following basic features
behind the restructuring:
(i) The date of entry into grades Rs.700-900 above will be
taken as the starting point to reckon seniority. This is the
effect of the circular of 22.22.88 the validity of which has
not been challenged in the petition.
(ii) Considering the large strength of employees in the
Traffic Stream, viz. 4430, about 10% of the posts have been
upgraded which will mean that about 443 persons will be in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
the above grades. So far as the Control Stream is concerned,
the percentage of posts in the above zone has been increased
to about 35% of the 270 posts available with the result that
about 211 people will be in the above grades. As a result of
the mass upgradation, a large percentage of people in the
Control Stream immediately derive monetary benefits. They
have accepted these benefits and have been occupying the
upgraded position since 1984 onwards.
(iii) The date of the upgradation in both the streams cannot
be the same for the result of it would be that all the
upgraded personnel will have seniority reckonable from the
same date. This being the position, their seniority will
have to be based on the length of their services in the
immediately lower scales or reckoned as from the date of
their entry into the lowest of the Group C grades and this
would, have revived the same problem which the Government
was trying to solve. That is why the Government fixed dif-
ferent dates for the two streams separated only by a short
span of five months and this was neither unreasonable nor
discriminatory.
Counsel submits that the Government was trying to forge
out a solution that will be fair ’to both the streams and
that the attempt of the petitioners to accept the upgrada-
tions of the scales in their stream but objecting to the
other part regarding date of fixation should not be allowed
to succeed. He submits that if the petitioners were prepared
to accept the same percentage of upgradation as the Traffic
Stream persOnnel and give up the extra benefits received,
the Government could reconsider the whole question afresh.
After hearing both counsel, we have reached the conclu-
sion that the materials before us are totally inadequate to
come to any conclusion on the true impact of the circulars,
In fact, to start with, we were
462
of the view that, in a matter like this, the proper remedy
of the petitioners is to approach the Central Administrative
Tribunal which has been set up for that very purpose. But
since counsel for the petitioners pleaded that the writ
petitions have been pending here since 1985 and it would not
be fair to the petitioners to sent them now to pursue that
remedy, we heard the petitioners and the opposite parties at
some length but, as will emerge from the above discussion,
the exact position and impact of the circulars is very
nebulous. As pointed out by Sri Mahajan, the Department is
trying to cope with the problem of giving fair promotional
opportunities to two different streams which become eligible
for promotion to Group B posts. Since the counsel for the
petitioner has stated that he has no quarrel with the circu-
lars of 5.3.83 and 22.12.88 and since the circular of 6.1.84
already stands quashed by the Central Administrative Tribu-
nal, the only grievance of the petitioners that survives is
against the upgradation circulars. Apart from the merits,
there are three difficulties in considering the plea of the
petitioners that the part of the two circulars fixing dif-
ferent dates of upgradation should alone be set aside:
(a) The plea of the petitioners, if accepted, will affect a
large number of persons in the traffic stream and even
result in a number of reversions in all the Railways. Though
the petitioners have made some persons in the traffic stream
working in the Central Railway parties, neither the persons
likely to be affected in other parts of the country nor
their union have been made parties.
(b) As discussed above, the circular of 20.12.83. confers
substantial benefits on members of the control stream. A
large number of them have been able to secure an upgradation
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
to the scale of Rs.700-900 which, otherwise, may not have
come to them for sometime, and they may or may not all be
affected adversely by the date of upgradation. It is also
pointed out that upgradation in the traffic stream are
subject to selection on the basis of a written test and viva
voce, while the upgradations in the control stream are
automatic based on seniority-cum-suitability. It is, there-
fore, not clear even whether the All India Controller’s
Union is speaking in one voice for all its members either
for or against the circular of 20.12.83.
(c) As pointed out by Sri Mahajan, the Department has issued
a seniority list in pursuance of its circular. No attempt
has been made to substantiate the grievances of the peti-
tioners by pointed factual references to that list.
463
Coming to the merits again, the inequity is not appar-
ant. Having to deal with two different streams, differently
placed, the Government has to find out an equitable solution
and it has been groping towards it. One method would perhaps
have been to have fixed quotas for promotion from each of
the streams but that is not necessarily the only method. An
alternative method is being attempted here--and the princi-
ple that grades of Rs.700-900 and above should be considered
together being conceded--the Department is trying to give
some weightage by granting upgradation to each stream based
on its total strength in order to balance the promotional
chances in both the streams. It is possible that some indi-
vidual cases may be affected but no answer to the question
whether any class discrimination has resuited can be given
unless fuller details are available and the practical impact
of the latest position is placed before us. If a good number
of persons in the control stream are benefitted monetarily
despite the disadvantage to a few, in the matter of promo-
tion, it may be a question how far the Association of the
Controllers will be able to make out a case of class dis-
crimination. Even if we assume that the entire control
stream would be adversely affected, the question will still
remain whether the basis of differentiation is justified in
the circumstances or amounts to arbitrary discrimination. We
express no opinion on these questions at this stage. We
would only say that, in the absence of adequate material
before us, we are unable to reach any conclusion on the plea
of discrimination. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition
but we will leave it to the petitioners, if so advised, to
move the Central Administrative Tribunal, with fuller facts
and in the light of the latest developments, for appropriate
relief after impleading all affected parties or their repre-
sentatives so that the entire picture may emerge and a just
conclusion arrived at.
Y. Lal Petition dis-
missed.
464