FEDERATION OF DIRECTLY APPOINTED OFFICERS OF INDIAN RAILWAY.ANO OL'HERS EJC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 1018 · Decided: 18-06-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
FEDERATION OF OIRECTLY APPOINTED OFFICERS OF INDIAN 
RAILWAY.ANO Ol'HERS EJC. ETC. 
v . 
. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JUNE 18, 1993 
[A.M. AHl\IADI AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, .JJ.l 
. Civil Services : 
Indian Raihvay Sen·ice of Engineer.\: (C/ass-1)-AhsorP.tion (f temporary 
c Assiswm E1igi11eers <0.{{icers) imo the .~en·ice-Seniorir:y-H'eighrage-Ha(fthe 
length of sen·ice prior to atrwrption subjerr to a maxi11111111 of five 
~·ears--;Correctness of-Dispute hetween parties in representative 
cdpaciry-Applicabiliry o_(Res .111dicc11a. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
There were two parallel S~rviccs of Engineers ln the Indian Railwa~·s. 
One was the Indian Railway Scn·ice of Engineers (Class-(1) who were 
subjected to competitive written and personality tests and appointed hy the 
President oflndia. The other Service· was the tcmporar~· Assistant Engineers 
(later known as TemporaQ' Assistant Officers) appointed by the Railway 
Board, on selection based on interview alone. In addition to the minimum 
educational qualifications which was the same for both the services three 
)'Cars experience as Civil Engineer 'was required for the Railway Service of 
Engineers. 
' 
The temporary Assistant Otlicers were gradually abscirbed into the 
Indian R.ailway Sen-ice of Engineers and the Railway Board took a decision 
that they would l,>e given wcightage in ·seniorit~· on the basis of half the ·total 
length of continuous service in working posts in Railways prior to their 
permanent absorption into Cla--.-1 subject to a maximum weightage of five 
· years._ 
Writ Petitions were filed in this Court by the Federation of T cmporary 
Officers Association. in a representative· capacity seeking relief in their 
seniority status.· 
This Court dismissed the Writ Petitions holding that the classification of 
temporary' Assistant Officers separate from the Indian Railwa~· Service 
1018 
1 
-. 
-
RAILWAY OFFICERS FEDERA TJON \'. UNION OF INDIA 
1019 
Engineer·s Class-I, was neither discriminatory nor violative of Articles 14 and 
A 
16 of the Constitution; and that the object of recruitment, methods of 
recruitment, appointing authority and training imparted being different, no 
question of their entitlement to equal rights arose till they were absorbed into 
the Indian Railway Service of Engineers Class-I. This Court also approved 
. the measures of the Railway Board in regard to giving weightage of half' the 
length of service as temporary Assistant Officers subjecttoa maximum offive 
B 
years. Their claim for equal status for equal 'pay and equal l\'ork was also 
rejected. (Katyani Dayal & Ors. v. U.O.i. [1980] 3 SCR 139). 
In the present Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals filed in a representative 
capacity, the relief claimed were on the same lines as in Katyani Dayal's case. 
As directed by this Court the affected parties were impleaded in their 
representative capacity, so that the decision of this .Court would he binding on 
every m~mber of both the classes of employees. 
On hehalf <if the Petitioners/Appellants, it was. contend~d that equal pay 
c 
for equal work with equality in ati other conditions of service including 
D 
avenues of confirmation, absorption, promotion, pension and security have 
. become inflexible postulates of Sfrvice jurisprudence. 
The respondentS contended that what was being asked was a virtual 
review of Katyani Dayal's case which could not be permitted. It was also 
contended that principles of constructive res judicata would bar the re-
agitation of the. issues decided in Katyani Dayal's case if not the strict 
principles of res judicata.: and that when the matter has been settled in this 
particular sen ice, its unsettling by means of a petition under Article 32 of the 
Constitution was impermissi1!1e. 
Dismissing the matters, this Court 
E 
F 
HELD: 1. The distinction between the two services.was well marked in 
Katyani Dayal's case .and the important question of equality was once for all 
settled. To find fault with it, at this juncture again on the touch-~tone of 
equality dimension would. be to unsettle a settled position. That venture is 
G 
neither in the interest of justice nor in the interest of service. When there has 
been complete absorption of the personnel of one service into the other, and 
the seniority of the absorbees is to be reckoned from their date o~absorption 
as stipulated in their appointment letters with weightage of half the length of' 
H 
1020 
Sl1PREME COU,RT REPOl,{'rs 
[1993] 3 

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