LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus M. BHASKAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. M. BHASKAR AND ORS. MAY 6, 1996 (K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] Service Law : Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1968: Rules 123 and 127. Apprentices-Traffic/Commercial-Higher pay scale under Railway Board's memorandum dated 15.5.1987-Entitlement-Held: The higher pay scale was meant for Traffic/Commercial Inspectors of higher grade only and not for all grades of Traffic/Commercial Apprentices-Para 2(ii) of the memorandum of 1987 did not deal with revision of pay of all Traffic/Com- mercial Apprentices. Indian Railway Establishment Code, 1951 : Rule I-A. Recruitment process-Railway Board's memorandum dated E 15.5.1987-Direct recruitment to higher grade of Traffic/Commercial Appren- tices-Deviated from provisions of Railway Establishment Manual-Held: such deviation pennissible under Rule I-A of the Code. Traffic/Commercial Apprentices-Recruited Railway Board's memorandum dated 15.5. 1987-Given higher pay scales and reduced training F period compared to pre-1987 Apprentices-Held : such a policy neither discriminatory nor arbitrary and unreasonable. Traffic/Commercial Apprentices-Recruited on new terms w.e.f. 15.5.1987 under Railway Board's 1987 memorandum-Held : 17ie cut-off G date ( 15.5.1987) was not arbitrary. Traffic/Commercial Apprentices--Pre-1987 and post-1987 appren- tices-Railway Board's 1987 memorandum presc1ibed new tenns w.e.f. 15.5.1987-Apprentices recruited under 1985 adve1tisement-But called for training in 1989-Held: these apprentices could not be treated differently from H other pre-1987 apprentices because they were called for training in 1989. 358 U.0.!. v. M. BHASKAR 359 Promotion-Length of cxpe1ie11ce--Computatio11 of-Order of promo- A tion made effective from a retrospective date-Held: the peiiod of experience for ftutl1er promotion had to be computed Ji-om date of actual promotion and not from retrospective date. The Railway Board had issued a memorandum dated 15.5.1987 which brought about some changes in the recruitment of Traffic/Commer- cial Apprentices - on of the changes being that on and from 15.5.1987 the recruitment of these Apprentices would be made in the pay scale of Rs. I?00-2660 (this scale earlier was Rs. 1400-2300). The memorandum had raised the standard of' examination and reduced the training period from B 3 to 2 years in respect of post-1987 Apprentices. The respondents had laid C a claim for the higher scale of pay at par with post-1987 Apprentices even though they were recruited pursuant to an advertisement of 1985 and were called for training during 1989. One of the respondents was promoted as Commercial Inspector Grade-II by an order dated 21.9.1989 effective from 11.10.1988 but was denied promotion to Grade-I although he had 2 years D of experience in _Grade-II as on 11.10.1990. The respondents tiled a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal for higher scale of pay on the basis of 1987 memorandum and also challenged the validity of the memorandum because of its dis- criminatory nature and introduction of arbitrary cut-off date. The E Tribunal allowed the petition and promotion of the respondent from Grade-II to Grade-I Commercial Inspector. The Tribunal also held the memora~dum as invalid, because of its being in the nature of administra~ live instruction it could not have changed the Indian Railway Estab- lishment Code, 1951 which was statutory in nature. F Disposing of the Appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The memorandum of 1987 was really not one of revision of pay of the Trallic/Commercial Apprentices, as has been understood by those Tribunal who have conceded the higher pay scale. The higher pay G scale was really. meant for the Traffic/Commercial Inspector~ of higher grade. Para 2(ii) of the memorandum of 1987 does not support the case of the respondent that it really dealt with the revision of pay of all the Traffic/Commercial Apprentices. [363-G, 364-C] 1.2. Rule 1-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, 1951 which H 360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A had come to be made pursuant tu the power conferred by the proviso tu Article 309 and having stated that the recruitment in the lowest grade will be made in accordance with the instructions laid down by the Railway Board from time to time, the rule itself permitted the Railway Board to issue necessary instructions, and the memorandum of 1987 h3' :ng been B is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.