Union of India & Ors Vs. A. Radhakrishnan
& Ors [1991] INSC 220 (4 September 1991)
Verma,
Jagdish Saran (J) 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.
HEAD NOTE:
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- 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.
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
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 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 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 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- 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.
Back