B. S. VADERA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 27-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 
( 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
B. S. VADERA 
''· 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
March 27, 1968 
[M. HlDAYATULLAH, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM, 
K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
Constilution of India, Art. 309-Railway Establishn1ent Code, r. 157-
Rc.ilway Board's Secretariat Clerical Service (Reorganisation) Scheme 
fr<11ned in 1957 hut nJade applicable from 1954-Board's power to frame 
rules with retrospective effect. 
The petitioners who were wo'rking as Assistants were by the operation 
of the Railway Board's Secretariat 
Clerical 
Service 
(Reorganisation) · 
Scheme reverted as Upper Division CleTks in 1967. The said scheme was 
framed on Febt·uary 5, 1957 but was brought into effect from December 
1, 1954. Certain modifications to the scheme relating to the manner of 
filling. up of permanent and temporary vacancies in Grade I of the Service 
were made in 1963. 
The. petitioners came to this Court under A'rt. 32 
of the Constitution, challenging the orders of reversion 
passed 
against 
them as illegal. On behalf of respondents the o'rders were defended as 
being based on the order of seniority which had been re-fixe<l according to 
the said Scheme. The contentions advanced on behalf of .the petitioners 
were:· (i) That their promotion as Upper Division Clerks and later as 
Assistants had beeti. on a permanent ba·sis and could not be disturbed; 
(ii) That the Scheme as well as the various orders passed by the respon-
dents weTe violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution; (iii) That the 
second respondent (Railway Board) had no power in law, to frame either 
the Scheme, or the modified Scheme so as to have retrospective effect from 
December I. 1954. 
HELD : (i) The ranking given to the petitioners as a result of which 
the impugned orders of reversion were passed was in accordance with the 
Scheme as . modified in 1963.. 
On the facts, the contention of the peti-
tioners that their. appointment as Upper Division Clerks 
and 
later 
as 
F 
Assistants was on a permanent basis, could not be accepted. [582 B-C] 
G 
H 
(ii) Once it was held that the petitioners did not satisfy the require-
ments of the scheme for being retained as Assistants there was no question 
of any discrimination under .Art. 14 or violation of Art. 16 arising for 
consideration at all. (582 G] 
(iii) The Indian Railway Esiablishment Code has been issued by the 
President in exercise of the powers vested in him· by th~ proviso to Art 309 
of the Constitution'. 
Rule 151 of the Code gives the Railway Board full 
powers to make rules of a general application to non-gazetted railway 
servants under· their control. If full effect is given to: the wordS in Art. 
309, namely 'and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the pro-
visions of any such Act', then in the absence of any Act as afore.,.aid in 
the .pre.sent case, th~ power to make rules· with retrospective effect ~.caiinot 
be .. demed to the Radway Board; Accordingly the Scheme fralll"..d by the 
satd Board 10 1957 could be made retrospectively effective from Decem-
ber I, 1954. [583 E, 584 H, A-El 
State v. Padmanahhacharya, [19661 I S.C.R. 994 and 
Nagarajan v. 
Mysore, [1966) 3 S.C.R1. 682. consideTed. 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968] 3 S.C.R 
Ram Autar v. State of U.P. A.J.R., 1962 All. 328 F.B. approved. 
A 
Govindaraju v. State of Mysore, 
A.I.R. 
1963 
Mys. · 265 and 
Garindappa v. J.G. of Registration, A.J.R. 1965 Mys. 25, disapproyed. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : 
Writ Petitions Nos. 96 and 16S 
of 1967. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement of fundamental rights. 
S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta for the petitioner (in W.P. 
No. 96 of 1967). 
A. K. Sen, A. P. Chatterjee and M. M. Kshatriya, for the 
Petitioner (in W.P. No. 16S ·of 1967). 
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, V. A. Seyid Muhammad 
and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in both the 
petitions). 
i3. R. G. K. Achar, for respondents Nos. 3, 6 to 9, 13, lS, 17, 
18, 21, 26, 29, 30, 31, 36, 39, to 4S, 47, SO, S3 to SS, S8, 61, 
64, 66, 69, 76, 77, 81, 82, 87, 91, 94, 96, 97, 103 to lOS, 108, 
123, 136 and lSO (in W.P. No. 96 of 1967). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J. In both these writ petitions, under Art. 32 
of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to have quashed, certain 
orders passed by the 2nd respondent and, in particular; the order 
dated June 16, 1967, reverting them, as Upper Division Clerks, 
with effect from June 9, 1967. The Uni

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