LexS.K. CHAKRABORTHY AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. S.K. CHAKRABORTIIY AND ORS. A v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. JULY 11, 1988 [SABYASACHI MUJ<HA.RJI AND L.M. SHAR.\fA, JJ.J B Civil Services; Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol.I Rule I58-Production Control Organisation, Kharagpur-Memorandum No. 476-/3-I0065 dated 4-5/ IOI I979 directing that Railway Board's circular No E(NG) 59-SRG-22 dated 22.4.1963 declaring all posts in PCO ex-cadre be implemented-Effect of-Railway Board's circular C No. E(NG) 1-79-PMT-242 (DC/JCM) dated J3.9.I984 excepting PCO, Integral Coach Factory-Whether disc_riminatory . Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14-Class disposition for- bidden-Reasonable classification for the purpose of disposition permissible-Twin tests of classification founded on intelligible dif- D fe~entia-To have a rational nexus to object sought to be achieved. Rule 158 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, empowers the General Managers to make rules with regard to the non- gazetted railway servants provided they are not inconsistent with any rules made by the President or the Railway Board. The Railway Board E brought out a circular dated 22.4.1963 laying down the rules for determination of seniority of workshop staff employed in the Produc- . lion Control Organisation and declaring all posts therein as ex-cadre. Due to the stiff opposition of organised labour the said circular could not be implemented in the Kharagpur workshop. The Superintendent, however, after discussing the question with the organised labour issued F a memorandum on 21. 7 .1973 stating that all posts in the PCO would be cadre posts. Subsequently, by a circular dated 9.7.1978 the Railway Board declared that the staff from shop-floors posted in the PCO would receive special pay of 10% of their pay but this would not be available to the staff who were permanently absorbed in the PCO or directly recruited in the PCO. Upon this, representations were made by the G labour to the Railway Board for implementing its circular dated 22.4.1963 so that the staff of the PCO would be eligible for the special pay. In pursuance of the meetings held with .the labour, the memo- randum dated 4-5/10/1979 was issued which declared that the Railway Board's circular of 1963 would be implemented in the PCO and that all posts would be treated as ex-cadre posts. By another circular issued on H 425 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 13.9.1984 the Railway Board allowed the PCO at the Integral Coach A Factory, Southern Railway, to continue on cadre basis. Aggrieved by the said circular, the petitioners, who at the rele- v:mt time were all employees of PCO at Kharagpur, carried the matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal and contended; (i) that B their posts could· not be declared as ex-cadre because vesJed rights which had accrued in their favour could not be affected, and (ii) they could not be treated differently from those of the Integral Coach Factory. This was hostile discrimination and amounted to violation of their rights. The Tribunal rejected both the contentions. c Dismissing the special leave petition, HELD: I. Administrative re-organisation is permissible and as a result of the same rights may be affected but the vested rights could not be taken away. In the instant case inasmuch as the memorandum dated 21st July, 1973 WB> inconsistent with the circular issued by the Railway D Board in 1963 no right vested in the petitioners and hence no question.of affecting vested rights arise. [429C-DJ T.R. Kapur & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [1986] JT 1092 referred to. E 2.1 Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class disposition but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of disposition which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be F achieved by the disposition. [430A-B] D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165, refer- red to. 2.2 The circular of 1984 of the Railway Board was issued pur- G suant to the negotiations with the staff in the Departmental Council of Ministry of Railways. The existing arrangement in the PCO of Integral Coach Factory was not disturbed because the recognised Unions there did not want it to be so disturbed; whereas in the P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.