Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
A. RADHAKRISHNAN AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/09/1991
BENCH:
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
BENCH:
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 2080 1991 SCR (3) 895
1991 SCC Supl. (2) 208 JT 1991 (3) 594
1991 SCALE (2)469
ACT:
Civil Service--Railway--P. C.O. Wings--Staffing pattern
Separation of Progress Wing from other Wings--Railway
Board’s decision dated 13.9. 1984---Whether discriminatory.
Constitution of India, 1950--Articles 14, 16--Wings in
P.C.O. of Integral Coach Factory--Staffing pattern--Treating
Progress Wing separate cadre--Railway Board’s decision dated
13.9.84--Whether discriminatory.
HEADNOTE:
The P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Factory comprises of
four wings which include the Progress and Inspection Wings.
The order dated 8.6.1982 by General Manager stated that
in accordance with the Railway Board’s approval, the
Progress Wing alone of the P.C.O. would be a separate cadre
and not the remaining wings. The Inspection Wing was not
treated as a separate cadre unlike the Progress Wing.
Being aggrieved, the respondents-the employees in the
Inspection Wing filed Writ Petition in the High Court which
was allowed by the Single Bench.
Meanwhile the Integral Coach Factory issued a circular
on 21.9.1984 conveying Railway Board’s decision dated
13.9.1984 regarding the staffing pattern of the P.C.Os. in
the workshops including the Integral Coach Factory. Accord-
ing to this decision, all posts in the P.C.O. except the
Progress Wing continued to be ex-cadre posts and the tenure
of these posts was directed to be strictly adhered to. The
existing position regarding en-cadering of the posts in the
P.C.O. in all wings of Southern Railway and Progress Wing of
Integral Coach Factory was allowed to be continued.
The writ appeal of the railway administration was dis-
missed by the Division Bench of the High Court, against
which the present appeal by special leave was preferred by
the Railway Administration.
896
It was contended that the Inspection Wing performed the
function of inspecting the quality of the products of the
Integral Coach Factory and thereby ensured quality control
of the products, whereas the Progress, Planning and Time
Study Wings of the P.C.O. were involved in the manufacture
of these products and there was thus an intelligible differ-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
entia between the function of the Inspection Wing on one
side and the remaining Wings on the other.
Allowing the appeal of the Railway Administration, this
Court,
HELD: 1. In view of the nature of functions performed by
the four different wings of the P.C.O., the High Court’s
view that the Inspection Wing and the Progress Wing of the
P.C.O. must be classified together and treated as separate
cadres, cannot be accepted. It is significant that even at
some of the earlier stages, Inspection Wing was treated
differently as a matter of policy. [901H-902A]
2. The work of the Inspection Wing, is to inspect the
quality of the manufactured products to ensure quality
control, while the Progress Wing is concerned with the stage
prior tO manufacture of the products. For the efficiency of
the Inspection Wing which performs the duty of exercising
vigilance over the production for the sake of ensuring
quality of the products, it is not unreasonable to think
that a periodic rotation of its personnel would be conducive
to efficient functioning of the Inspection Wing. The perma-
nency of personnel in the Inspection Wing can promote leth-
argy in them and may also tend to create vested interests.
The possibility of change therein makes the existing person-
nel more vigilant to avoid any lapse which could be discov-
ered by the replacement. The highest possible standards of
vigilance by them is achieved by the possibility of rever-
sion to the shop floor against their will if the required
degree of efficiency and standard in performance of the duty
is not maintained. [902B-D]
3. The work of the Inspection Wing being at the end
point with no further scrutiny thereafter, rotation of its
personnel is likely to promote the efficiency of the unit.
This factor is sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for
classification of the Inspection Wing differently from the
Progress Wing and there is no ground to complain of discrim-
ination, if according to the Railway Board’s policy, the
Inspection Wing is not treated as a separate cadre like the
Progress Wing. The power of the railway administration to
formulate such a policy provided it is not discriminatory
being rightly not challenged, this conclusion alone is
sufficient to uphold the action of the railway administra-
tion. [902D-F]
897
4. The authority Of the Railway Board to adopt the
policy to bring about the necessary changes in the staff
pattern for improving the efficiency of the administration
of units under its control and for the purpose of streamlin-
ing the Organisation provided there was no discrimination is
undoubted. [903A]
S.K. Chakarborthy and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 425, referred.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3838 of
1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.6.1987 of the Tamil
Nadu High Court in W.A. No. 555 of 1984.
K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, B.K. Prasad,
A.K. Srivastava, P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellants.
A.T.M. Sampath and K.V. Sreekumar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VERMA, J. This matter brings to the fore once again the
ineptitude with which litigation is conducted quite often on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
behalf of the Government of India and State Governments even
when important issues having lasting and wide repercussions
are involved. The point in this case relates to the validity
of a policy of the railway administration and is likely to
affect the staff pattern in several units. Inspite of this
fact, to support validity of the impugned policy the re-
quired materials were not produced in the High Court and to
overcome the adverse decision several opportunities given by
us to produce the entire relevant record were not availed.
The learned Additional Solicitor General informed us after
several adjournments that better performance is not possi-
ble. We, therefore, concluded the hearing and proceed to
decide on the available materials. It is indeed fortunate
for the appellants that our conclusion is in their favour.
The railway administration with its countrywide network can
help to improve this situation by a genuine effort in this
direction and thereby contribute also to saving of needless
expense and time. We, therefore, direct that a copy of this
judgment be sent to the Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of
Railways, Government of India.
In view of the situation indicated above, we are mentioning
only
898
those facts which are necessary for deciding this matter and
which are accepted by both the sides. It is not unlikely
that there may be more material in the available records of
the appellants to support our conclusion.
Briefly stated the controversy in this matter relates
only to the employees working in the Inspection Wing of the
Production Control Organization (for short ’P.C.O.’) of the
Integral Coach Factory, Perambur. The grievance of these
employees in the Inspection Wing is to the implementation of
the circular dated 8.6.1982 of the General Manager’s Office
(Personnel Branch/Fur.), Madras of the Integral Coach
Factory issued in supersession of the earlier circulars on
the subject with the Railway Boards approval to treat the
Progress Wing alone of the P.C.O. as a separate cadre. The
grievance of the employees in the Inspection Wing is that
there is no reasonable basis for this classification of the
Progress Wing of the P.C.O. separately denying the same
benefit to those in the Inspection Wing. In short, the
employees of the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. also want to
be in a separate cadre like those in the Progress Wing and
absorbed perma nently in the P.C.O. without the risk of
being reverted to the shop floor from which they had been
taken and where their lien continues.
A brief history of the Production Control Organization
in the Integral Coach Factory, Perambur, may now be given.
The P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Factory was constituted to
ensure quality control of the production in the factory. It
comprises of four wings which include the Progress and
Inspection Wings. It appears that the policy for manning the
different wings of the P.C.O. remained nebulous for quite
long and several changes therein were made from time to time
to accommodate the staff’s point of view. To begin with,
persons from different trades in the shop floor were taken
on deputation for the different wings of the P.C.O. For the
Progress Wing of the P.C.O., there was also some direct
recruitment, but the same was stopped after some time proba-
bly in the year 1958 and it was decided that the posts in
the Progress Wing be filled by taking persons on deputation
from the shop floor. On 22.4.1963, the Railway Board laid
down uniform policy for the P.C.Os. in all units of the
Indian Railways according to which all the posts in the
P.C.Os. were made ex-cadre and every employee posted in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
P.C.O. was to be from a trade in shop floor. The employees
transferred from the shop floor to the P.C.O. were to retain
their lien in the shop floor and deemed to be on temporary
transfer. This gave rise to some practical difficulty and
the permanently absorbed staff in the P.C.O. were given
option to revert to the
899
shop floor. The staff directly recruited in the P.C.O. were
to be allotted a trade and given the option for getting
absorbed in the shop floor.. On 13.10.1964, a modification
was made which is contained in the G.M. (P)’s letter No.
PB(S)/M/6/ATC which refers to the Railway Board’s letter No.
E(NG) 59SR 6-22 dated 22.4. 1963. This was the first stage,
as described by the learned Additional Solicitor General,
for the employees in the P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Facto-
ry, Perambur. At the next stage. this policy was further
modified for the Inspection Wing by a circular dated
13.8.1965 of the Office of the GM/PB/Shell of the Integral
Coach Factory. This was a half-way measure implemented
straightaway in the Inspection Wing, but could not be imple-
mented in the other three wings, namely, Progress, Planning
and Time Study, because of certain practical difficulties
therein. According to this modification, the Inspection Wing
was to form a separate ex-cadre unit and the employees in
the Inspection Wing were given proforma position in the
cadre posts in their trade and could be reverted to their
parent cadre in the shop floor in the position which they
occupied in the shop floor. This again met with difficulty
in implementation giving rise to circular dated 29.9.1967 of
the Office of the General Manager/Personnel Branch ‘Staff’
of the Integral Coach Factory. Option was given to the staff
in the Progress, Planning and Time Study Wings of the P.C.O.
to get absorbed and interpolated in the shop floor leaving
the Inspection Wing separate. This circular dated 29.9. 1967
was struck down by the Madras High CoUrt vide its order
dated 22.8. 1975 in a petition filed by employees of the
shop floor on the ground that the General Manager of the
Integral Coach Factory had no power to act inconsistently
with the Railway Board’s circular and the remedy is to
modify the Railway Boards circular dated 22.4.1963. Accord-
ingly, the procedure laid down in the order dated 29.9. 1967
was cancelled and all posts in the P.C.O. were declared ex-
cadre by a circular dated 28.8. 1977 of the General Manag-
er’s Office (Personnel Branch/Fur.) of the Integral Coach
Factory. A modification m the earlier proposal was made by
this order. All employees were to be allotted a trade and
given option either to go to the shop floor or remain perma-
nently in the P.C.O. However, this too could not be imple-
mented on account of the protest of the staff and the unions
representing them. At the next stage, a proposal was made by
the Integral CoaCh Factory to the Railway Board which is
contained in the letter dated 1.3. 1982 from the Chief
Personnel Officer, Integral Coach Factory to the Joint
director, Establishment, Railway Board. This was in pursu-
ance to the suggestion of the staff itself that the Progress
Wing alone be treated as separate cadre in the P.C.O. and
not the remaining wings. Reasons in support of the proposal
were also given therein. The Railway Board
900
conveyed its approval to this proposal in its letter No.
E(NG) 1-81 PM 1/259(CA) dated 20.3. 1982. This led to the
issuance of the order dated 8.6.1982 by General Manager,
Integral Coach Factory, stating that in accordance with the
Railway Board’s approval, the Progress Wing alone of the
P.C.O. would be a separate cadre and not the remaining
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
wings. As a result of this decision, the Inspection Wing is
not treated as a separate cadre unlike the Progress Wing.
This is the basis of the grievance of the employees of the
Inspection Wing which led to the filing of the writ petition
giving rise to this appeal.
Writ Petition No. 4468 of 1982 filed in the Madras High
Court by the respondents was allowed by the learned Single
Judge on 7.4.1984. Thereafter, another step was taken by the
railway administration which may be mentioned. The Integral
Coach Factory issued a circular on 21.9.1984 conveying
Railway Board’s decision contained in the letter dated
13.9.1984 regarding the staffing pattern of the P.C.Os. in
the workshops including the Integral Coach Factory. Accord-
ing to this decision, all posts in the P.C.O. except the
Progress Wing continued to be ex-cadre posts and the tenure
of these posts was directed to be strictly adhered to. The
existing position regarding en-cadering of the posts in the
P.C.O. in all wings of Southern Railway and Progress Wing of
Integral Coach Factory was allowed to be continued. In
short, it was a reversion to the initial stage contained in
the order dated 22.4.1963 of the Railway Board except for
the Progress Wing. The writ appeal of the railway adminis-
tration was thereafter dismissed by the High Court on
22.6.1987. The further facts are not material for deciding
the point in controversy.
In short, the employees of the Inspection Wing which
include the respondents, contend that they are entitled to
be treated similarly as the employees of the Progress Wing,
whose continuance in the P.C.O. without the risk of rever-
sion to the shop floor is assured by the adoption of this
policy. This contention of the respondents has been accepted
by the High Court. The acceptance of the respondents claim
results in striking down the Railway’s policy to this extent
of not treating the Inspection Wing also as a separate cadre
like the Progress Wing. It also affects the prospects of
those in the shop floor who are denied the chance of being
taken in the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. because of the
continuance permanently of those already there retaining
their lien in the shop floor. It is admitted that the serv-
ice conditions in the P.C.O. are better than those of the
corresponding posts in the shop floor. This is the reason
for those in the P.C.O. not wanting to revert to the shop
floor and the keenness of persons from the shop
901
floor to go to the P.C.O. Some employees working in the shop
floor have preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9774 of 1990 arising
out of a connected matter and have supported the stand of
the railway administration taken in Civil Appeal No. 3838 of
1988.
It is common ground before us that the Inspection Wing
of the P.C.O. performs the function of inspecting the quali-
ty of the products of the Integral Coach Factory and thereby
ensures quality control of the products. The Progress,
Planning and Time Study Wings of the P.C.O. are involved in
the manufacture of these products and come at the stage
relating to manufacture of the products. There is thus an
intelligible differentia between the function of the Inspec-
tion Wing on one side and the remaining wings of the P.C.O.
on the other. The background indicated earlier leading to
the decision by the Railway Board that the Progress Wing
alone would be treated as a permanent cadre in the Integral
Coach Factory and not the others, was reached on the basis
of experience over a long period and was in consonance with
the opinion of the Staff Council representing the views of
the staff of the Integral Coach Factory. It appears that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
continuity in Progress Wing and rotation in the Inspection
Wing was considered desirable for better efficiency. The
Railway Board being competent to effect necessary changes in
the staff pattern of the various units under its control for
the purpose of streamlining the Organisation and improving
their efficiency, took this decision for this purpose which
is consistent with the view of the staff Council represent-
ing the interest of the entire staff in the P.C.O. It does
appear that the railway administration did want at one time
to treat all units in the P.C.O. as separate permanent
cadres but practical difficulty in the implementation of
that policy and opposition by the staff impelled it to give
up the same. Even here we find that while those already in
the Inspection Wing want to remain there permanently, the
others who are in the shop floor and would be denied the
prospect of being taken in the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O.
if the respondents’ contention is upheld, are opposed to
this view. The decision of the Railway Board, therefore,
takes into account all points of view and makes an attempt
to reconcile the conflicting interests while ensuring im-
provement in the efficiency of the unit. If as a matter of
policy the Railway Board approved the proposal made by the
management of the Integral Coach Factory to treat the
Progress Wing alone of the P.C.O. as a separate cadre and
not so the remaining wings including the Inspection Wing,
the same cannot be faulted unless it is held to be discrimi-
natory or arbitrary. In view of the nature of functions
performed by the four different wings of the P.C.O., we are
unable to agree with the High Court’s view that the Inspec-
tion
902
Wing and the Progress Wing of the P.C.O. must be classified
together and treated as separate cadres. It is significant
that even at some of the earlier stages, Inspection Wing was
treated differently as a matter of policy.
The work of the Inspection Wing, as indicated earlier on
the basis of undisputed facts before us, is to inspect the
quality of the manufactured products to ensure quality
control, while the Progress Wing is concerned with the stage
prior to manufacture of the products. For the efficiency of
the Inspection Wing which performs the duty of exercising
vigilance over the production for the sake of ensuring
quality of the products, it is not unreasonable to think
that a periodic rotation of its personnel would be conducive
to efficient functioning of the Inspection Wing. The perma-
nency of personnel in the Inspection Wing can promote leth-
argy in them and may also tend to create vested interests.
The possibility of change therein makes the existing person-
nel more vigilant to avoid any lapse which could be discov-
ered by the replacement. The highest possible standards of
vigilance by them is achieved by the possibility of rever-
sion to the shop floor against their will if the required
degree of efficiency and standard in performance of the duty
is not maintained. The work of the Inspection Wing being at
the end point with no further scrutiny thereafter, rotation
of its personnel is likely to promote the efficiency of the
unit. This factor is sufficient to provide a reasonable
basis for classification of the Inspection Wing differently
from the Progress Wing and there is no ground to complain of
discrimination, if according to the Railway Board’s policy,
the Inspection Wing is not treated as a separate cadre like
the Progress Wing. The power of the railway administration
to formulate such a policy provided it is not discriminatory
being rightly not challenged, this conclusion alone is
sufficient to uphold the action of the railway administra-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
tion. The contrary view taken by the High Court cannot,
therefore, be sustained.
We find that the competence of the Railway Board to
change the staff pattern of the P.C.O. in the Kharagpur
Railway Workshop of South Eastern Railway, was challenged
before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The decision
there was contained in a Memorandum of 1979 declaring that
the posts in the P.C.O. in the Kharagpur Railway Workshop
would be treated as ’ex-cadre’ differently from the policy
in Integral Coach Factory. The Tribunal rejected the chal-
lenge based on discrimination between two units and a spe-
cial leave petition filed in this Court was dismissed. This
Court in S.K. Chakraborthy and Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors., [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 425 upheld the
903
authority of the Railway Board to adopt such a policy to
bring about the necessary changes in the staff pattern for
improving the efficiency of the administration of units
under its control and for the purpose of streamlining the
Organisation provided there was no discrimination.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside resulting in the
dismissal of the Writ Petition filed in the High Court. No
costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chairman,
Railway Board as directed.
V.P.R. Appeal
allowed.
904