LexGENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY SECUNDRABAD AND ANR ETC. versus A.V.R. SIDDHANTI AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I
207
A
GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY
B
c
SECUNDRABAD AND ANR ETC.
v.
A.V.R. SIDDHANTI AND ORS. ETC.
January 30, 1974
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.]
Constit111ion of India-Art. 14 & 16-Vio/atlon of equal treatment and discrim 1-
nation.
Since common question of law arise in the these a(>p!als, a comm:>n judg~~nt
was delivered to dispose of these appeals. The facts 1n C. A. No. 1937/72 are as
folJows:-
·
During the last world war, Indian Rail~y opened grain shops to Supply foo::l-
grains at cost priced to its employees throug~out the country. S~lf for this tempo-
rary grainshop complex was drawn from 3 different sourccs:-{1) Temporary em-
ployees selected through the Joint Selection Commission etci who ~re initially ap-
pointed in the pennanent departments but later transferred to grain shop compleJJ:
(ii) Temporary selected initially for permanent departments but posed straightway
in the Grain Shop Department and (iii) Temporary employees recruited from th~
'Open Market' for the Grain Shop Department. Respondent no. 1 to 9 beloage1
to Category lll.
D
After the emergency was over, Railway authorities decided to wind up the grarn
shop Department and to absorb its staff in permanent departments of the Railway
and accordingly respondent no, 1 to 9 were also absorbed in various departments.
E
F
On November 2nd, 1967, th~ Railway Board in partial modification of its earlier
proceeding directed that the seniority of temporary Grain Shop Staff consequent on
their absorption in the absorbing departments should be regulated on the basis of
their date of actual absorption in those departments and not on the basis as if they
had been absorbed in those departments right from the beginning of service.
On January 13, 1961, the Railway Board issued a 'clarification' that the seniority
of the Grain-Shop staff of category III should be fixed from the date of their absorption
in a JCmlaDCnt dcPartment, irrespective of their length of service in the Grain-Shop
Department, with regard to category I, it was laid down that temporary staff who
were initially appointed in the permanent department and were then transferred to
the Grain Shop dcpartment-\vould not have their seniority affected by their transfer
to the Grain Shop Department. It was further stated that seniority of category I [
should be fix~ with reference to the date of thei~ joining the Grain Shop Department.
The validity of the above decision dt. November 2, 1957, and January 13 1961 of
the Board had been questioned on the ground that they discriminate against' the em-
ployees of category III and, as such, violate the guarantee of equal treatment en-
shrined in Art. 14 and 16 o~the Constitution. The learned single judge of the High
Court accepted the contenttons of respandents nos. I to 9 and struck down the im-
pugned· proceedings.
On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the de;ision of th::
triaJ court and observed that when all the members of the Grain Shop D~partment
G
a~e.a!>sor~d in ditfer~nt departr,nents' of the Raif:way there c~nnot be further
d1v1ding line between direct recruits and those appa1nted through selection Board as
that would clearly .be a denial of equal oppartunity to persons similarly situate.:1,
H
On appeal before this court, the appellants raised two preliminary points-(i) that
there were Jachcs on the part of the respondents to file the writ petitions 8 to 11 years
after the issue of the ii:npugned decisions (ii) the petition.s ~id not implead about J 20
employees who were hkely to affect and therefore non-J01ndcr of parties is fa.ta! to
the petition.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD: (i) Since !he appellants did not con~as~ the pqint at the k>wer cJurt5:,
they cannot be pcnn1tted to rcsurrect before this Court.
·
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 J 3 S.C.11..
(ii) In the present case, the relief is claimed only against the Railways which has
been pleaded through its representative. No list of order fixing seniority or the
petitioners vis-a-vis particular individuals, persuant to ·the impugned decisions, is
being challenged. The employees who were likely to be affected as a result of the
re.adjustment i;-if the petitioners' seniority in accordance with the principles laid down
in the Boards' decision of October 16. 1952, were at the most, proper parties and not
necessary parties, and their non-joinder could not the fatal to the writ pctition.[213A] Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.