S. SARKAR & ORS. versus R.D. KRISTON, CHAIRMAN RLY. BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 14-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
S. SARKAR & ORS. 
v. 
R.D. KRISTON, CHAIRMAN RLY. BOARD, RAIL BHA WAN, NEW 
DELHI AND ORS. 
[R.M; SAHAI AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
MAY 14,1993 
Contempt Petition-Exercise of option by direct recruit Assistant Station 
Masters-Directions issued by Court on 30th April 1990-Held, contempt peti· 
c 
tion concerned with implementation of Court order, not whether the order passed 
by it was correct or not. 
The dispute was about whether the exercise of option by Assistant 
Station Masters, directly recruited, was a matter of choice or was compul-
sory. The order of this court of JO April 1.?90 inter alia protected the interests 
D 
of the applicants by holding that the 204/206 employees who had opted before 
1983 must be entitled to the benefit which would have been available to them 
on their options. 
The order was not implemented. It was argued for the contemner that 
E 
the order of this court would disturb seniority and may result in extending it 
to -many others. 
F 
G 
H 
Disposing of the contempt petition, this court, 
HELD : 1. The order dt. 30.4.90 left no ambiguity that these employees 
shall be treated'separately and would be granted the benefit that would ~ave 
been available to them. (758-D) 
'. 
2. The Court in contempt applications is concerned with the implemen-
tation of an order passed by it, and not whether such order is correct or not. 
3. Neither the submission regarding seniority, nor that it may-extend to 
others was raised earlier, and _if raised, they should be deemed to have been 
rejected. Even earlier it had been made clear that no one promoted shall be 
disturbed~ (758-F) 
756 
S. SARKAR 1·. CHAIRMAN, RL Y. BOARD [R.M. SAHA!, JJ 
757 
4. Within 2 months, alternative II to be applied to 204/206 employees for A 
their placement and promotion. Future promotions may be governed by the 
present alter· native. Promotions and all benefits shall be given retro· 
spectively. (758-H) 
Cost to the applicants of Rs. 5,000 
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition Nos. 130 & 195 
of 1991. 
IN 
Civil Appeal No. 2054of1990 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.87 of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Calcutta in T.A. No. 1263/86. 
G.S. Chatterjee and Avijit Bhattacliarjee for the Appellants. 
Dr. Anand Prakash, P. Narasimhan for B.K. Prasad, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. SAHAI, J. Why the appellants should have been forced to file these 
contempt applications forenforcementof the order passed by this Court as far back 
as on 30th April 1990 !n Civil Appeal No.2054 of 1990, is not without reason. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Grievance of the applicants is that despite clear findings recorded by this 
F 
Court, opposite parties are going back on it and persisting in the implementation 
of the order in a manner which frustrates the entire purpose for which the applicants 
approached this 'Court and is a clear violation of directions of this Court issued on 
30th April 1990. 
Entire dispute centered round the practice of exercising option by Assistant G 
St'1tion Masters who were recruited directly. Were they left any choice in the 
matter or was it compulsory. It was held by this Court, that various letters issued 
made it clear that the option had to be 'exercised at the time of appointment and 
where no option was exercised it was deemed to have been exercised. This Conrt 
found that the applicants were those persons who had to exercise option at the time H 
of appointment and their options were irrevocable. Effect of this was that they had 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993) 3 S.C.R. 
to wait till 1983 when restructuring was done. The Court further found that the 
cadre of Assistant Station Master/Station Master in South Eastern Railway was 
separate and not combined. But the Chief Personnel Officer applied alternative-
!, which under restructuring was to be applied to a zone where combined cadre was 
in vogue, as it was acceptable to leaders of the Union and was beneficial to large 
number of employees. The Court therefore did not interfere with implementation 
of the alternative-I, but protected the interest of the applicants by holding thus : 
"But both tne employees unions have accepted the implementation 
of the letter of Chief Perso9al Officer as it is beneficial to a majority 
of the employees. Therefore, it may not be disturbed. At the same 
time all those 204 employees who had opted before 1983 must be 
entitled to the benefit whi

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