AMAR DEO PRAKASH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 19-02-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AMAR DEO PRAKASH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 19, 1990 
B 
[S. RANGANATHAN AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] 
Railway Establishment Manual-Ru/es 202 and 321 and Railway 
Board Circulars dated July 29, 1983 and December 20, 1983-'Traffic 
Stream' and 'Control Stream' mass up gradation and restructuring of the 
cadres-Validity off or purposes of inter-se seniority. 
c 
These writ petitions have been filed by Gronp 'C' (Class Ill) 
employees of the Railways working in its Transportation (Traffic) 
Department. The said Department has different streams e.g. 'ContrOI 
Stream' and 'Traffic Stream' and the employees working therein have 
f-
different scales of pay. For purposes of their promotion to GJ"oup B. 
D 
posts, it was necessary to fix their inter se seniority, as only those 
employees from the different streams could be considered for 11romo-
tlon as would fall within the zone of consideration as per seniority list. 
As the zone of consideration is determined with reference to the number 
of vacancies in Group B for which selection is held, at any point of time, 
J 
the position of the employee in the combined seniority list of all the 
B 
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 bl a higher grade on a 
F 
regnlar basis were treated senior to those workillg in the lower grade 
and the said principle worked well until the enforcement of the recom-
'iy· 
mendatlons of the Third Pay Commission 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 imer se seniority of the employees and the Rall· 
G 
way 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 expe1·iments 
)> 
which according to the petitioners only resulted In chaos and contusion, 
employees of the Control Stream have flied the writ petition on the Issue 
H 
of a combined seniority list published by the administration on the basis 
450 
AMAR DEO PRAKASH v. U.0.1. [RANGANATHAN, J.] 
451 
of instructions on 15.6.85, as they found themselves excluded from the 
A 
panel of staff to be taken into consideration for promotion to Group B. 
They pray that the circular dt. 6. l.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 26.12.1983, restructuring the cadres as discriminatory as 
according to them they envisage 'mass upgradation' to their detriment. 
B 
The question for determination is whether the principle adopted on the 
strength of these circulars for fixing the inter se seniority of these 
employees is proper. 
Dismissing the writ petitions with liberty to the Petitioners to 
move the Central Administrative Tribunal, if so advised with fuller 
facts, this Court, 
C 
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 groping towards It. One method 
would perhaps have been to have fixed. quotas for promotion from each D 
of the streams but that Is not necessarily the only method. An alterna· 
tlve 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 welghtage by granting upgrada· 
tlon to each stream based on Its total strength In order to balance the 
promotional chan~es In both the streams. It Is possible that some lndi-
E 
vidual 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·Cl 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11704 F 
of 1985 etc. 
· 
(Under Article 32 of·the C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.