LALJEE DUBEY AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 13-11-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
r 
G 
H 
\ 
LALJEE DUBEY AND OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
November 13, 1973 
[A. N. RAY, C.J. ANDS. N. DW!VEDI, J.J 
249 
Constitution of lridia, Arts. 14 and 16-Discrlminatlon in the mat/Ir oj con-
ferment of benefit through an administraJlve order-IAttet of Preside/II dated 
November 11, 1953 classifying checker's post in Government Harness 
OJtd 
Saddlery Factory, Kanpur as posr. of lower division c/erks-,f.ppellant1 tlenied 
the designation as clerks while others similarly .situate were ziven the bemfll-
Held discriminatory. 
The appellants were employed as chec~ra in the Government Harness and 
Saddlery Fac(9ry, Kanpur. Their dutiea were substantially clerical. The ques-
tion of designating checkers substantially during clerical work was refetTed by 
the Government to a committee known as "Kalyanwala Committee". The com .. 
mittee recommended that tho peraoos d<)ing clerical work should be desianated 
as lower division clerks. The reco~dation was accepted by the Prelident 
of India by his letter dated November· 17, 1953. The Director General was 
directed to· re-classify cbeCkers· as L.D.'Cs if they were matriculate& or completed 
three. years continuous service as checkers. The appellants . claimed that they 
satisfied the above test and yet they were not classified as lower division clerb. 
The appellants filed a civil suit for a declaration that· they wero entitled to be 
Classified and re-designated as lower division clerks, foil!tding their claim on the 
President's letter dated November 17, 1953. Tho srliivinco of the appellantl 
was that other employees who did not possess the necessary qualifications were 
designated as LD.C.. Th• trial Court on evidence found that the 
appellanta 
were performing duties which were substantially of a clerical nature and there· 
fore granted the declaration in favour of the appellants. The District Court, on 
appeal by the State. held that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant relief 1ince 
the .President's letter wBs in the nature of departmental rules. 
On appeal by the 
appellants, the High Court held that the letter of the Prooident of India did aot 
constitute 'a rule under Art 309 of the Constitution but was merely in the nature 
of an administrative '.Or executive order. Before thia Court, tho appellants con· 
tended that the letter dated November 17, 1953, should ·be implemented becalllO 
the Government accepted ·the recommendations of the Kalyanwala Committee. 
The other checkers 1>0rforming duties similar to those of the. &pl'Ollants having 
been granted the benefit of the order contained in the President's letter, denial of 
the same benefit to the appellants who were similarly •ituate would be 'violative 
of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14 and 16. 
-
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: (i) The Jetter of the President of India dated 17th November, 1953 
gave a 118l1Clion to the recommendations of the Kalyanwala Committee. The 
authorities admitted some checkers as lower division clerks and left· others 
tG 
the_ir own posts. The direction· containing the sanction of the President indica· 
tes that the checket:s who had the requisite qualifications, viz., passing matricula· 
tion examination. or. in the alternative· three years continuous service in the· 
department, '1ere to be put in the category of lower division clerks. In the case 
of checkers who had requisite qualifications the authorities concerned had no· 
option to make any selection am.Qng such J?ersons f<?r th~ conferment of the 
·benefit. The appellants possessed the required quallficat1ons imd were perform· 
ing the duties which were substantially clerical. The appellants are thus entitled 
to be designated as lower division clerks in accordance with the directions con· 
tained ii! the letter of the President dated November 17, 1953. Thero !)as beea 
arbitrary discrimination against the appellants. 
In the case of checkers who did not posse8s the requisite qualifications, the 
authorities bad the dii;:cretion in matters of classification of cheCkers as lower 
division clerks. 
[253F-G] 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( 1974 j 2 S.C.R. 
(ii) Held further that it was not necessary to express any opinion as to 
whether the President's letter dated November 17, 1953 became a rule under 
Art. 309 of the Constitution. [254C] 
Purushottam Lal and others v. Union of India and another, [1973! 1 S.C.C. 
651, ·followed. 
Union of India v. K. P. Joseph and others, A.I.R. 1973 S.C

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