INDIA RAILWAY SAS STAFF ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 240 · Decided: 21-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
INDIA RAILWAY SAS STAFF ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 21, 1998 
B 
" 
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
y 
Service Law : 
c 
Classification of posts-Account staff of Railways-Fourth Central Pay 
Commission recommendations-Placed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-
3200-Not granted group 'B' status-SAS staff of CAG and CODA in the 
same pay scale granted group 'B' status-On challenge, claims rejected by 
Tribunal-On appeal, held classification of posts cannot be done purely on 
the basis of pay scales as it might lead to administrative hierarchical 
D imbala111;:e-Thus appellants not entitled to be placed in group 'B' status-
Constitution of India: Articles 14 and l 6. 
.K 
Appellants were serving in the Railways as Section Officers or 
Travelling Inspectors of Accounts in Group 'C'. The Fourth Central Pay 
Commission recommended revised pay scales of Rs. 2000-3200 to Accounts 
E staff under CGDA, CAG, Railways and Departments of Posts and 
Telecommunication. Though appellants were placed in the revised pay scale 
of Rs. 2000-3200, they were not granted Group 'B' status as has been done 
in respect of their counterparts In CAG and CGDA in the same pay scale. 
Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Tribunal which rejected their claim. 
F 
Hence the present appeal. 
The contention of the appellants was that SAS (Railways) have always 
been equated and granted parity with SAS(CAG) in the matter of Selection 
grades, pay scales status etc., and that any deviation from the traditional 
parity with the SAS(CAG) and SAS( CG DA) etc., would be discriminatory and 
G 
violative of Articles I 4 and I 6 of the Constitution. 
The contention of the respondents was that the matter of classification 
of posts in the Railways was examined in the context of recommendations of 
~ 
the Pay Commission but it was decided to leave the existing classification 
untouched as it would lead to drastic upheavals in the hierarchical structure. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
240 
INDIAN RAIL. STAFF ASSO. v. U.0.1. [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 
241 
HELD: I.I. There is no discrimination against the Accounts staff A 
>-
(Railways) in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 by not granting them group 'B' 
status like their counterparts in CAG or CGDA. 1251-E; 253-F] 
1.2. Classification of posts into gazetted or non-gazetted cannot be 
" 
done purely on the basis of scales of pay. There can be many criteria; 
administrative, procedural and others which have to be taken into consideration B 
'I"' 
by the authorities concerned before deciding on the classification. Admittedly, 
Railways have a number of posts of different operative categories in department 
such as Operating, Mechanical, Civil, Electrical, S&T etc. Where Field 
Operators may have scales of pay of Rs. 2000-3200 or Rs. 2375-3500 which 
have been classified as group 'C' only. Thus, the simplistic situation to c 
classification merely based on the scales of pay might lead to administrative 
hierarchical imbalances in any particular organisation. Selection procedure 
for appointment to a particular group posts and requirements of a department 
for classification of posts are valid considerations and any disturbance thereof 
would certainly lead to compounding of problems. 1251-D; 253-D] 
6' 
Associate Bank Officers Association v. State Bank of India & Ors., JT D 
(1997) 8 SC 422; State of Punjab and others v. Om Parkash Kaushal and 
others, 11996] 5 SCC 325 and Central Railway Audit Staff Association and 
others v. Director of Audit, Central Railway and others, [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 
458, referred to. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4647of1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.91 of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A .. No. 13/1998. 
"'"'( 
S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam and Ms. Shobha Verma for the 
Appellants. 
F 
Mrs. K. Amreshwari, A.K. Sharma and Ms. Anjani Ayyengar for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
'r-· 
D.P. WADHWA, J. The appellants are aggrieved by that part of the 
order dated April 26, 1991 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 
'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal did not accept their contention that they 
being in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 be also granted the Group B status 
like their counterparts in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of H 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] J S.C.R. 
A India (CAG) and the Control
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.