LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus A. RADHAKRISHNAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. I A v. A. RADHAKRISHNAN AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 4, 1991 [LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND .J.S. VERMA, JJ.] B Civil. Service-Railway-P. C. 0. Wings-Staffing pattern-Sepa- ration of Pr;gress Wing from other Wings-Railway Board's decision dated 13.9.1984--Whether discriminatory. Constitution of India, 1950---Articles 14, 16--Wings in P.C.O. of C Integral Coach factory-Staffing pattern-Treating Progress Wing separate cadre-Railway Board's decision dated 13.9.84--Whether discriminatory. The P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Factory comprises of four wings which inclnde the Progress and Inspection Wings. D The order dated 8.6.1982 by General Manager stated that in accordance with the Railway Board's approval, the Progress Win« alone of the P.C.O. would be a separate cadre and not the remaining \ wings. The Inspection Wing was not treated as a separate cadre unlike the Progress Wing. E Being aggrieved, the respondents-the employees in the Inspection Wing filed Writ Petition in the High Court which was allowed by the Single Bench. ~ Meanwhile the Integral Coach. Factory issued a circular on F \ 21.9.1984 conveying Railway Board's decision dated 13.9.1984 regard- ing the staffing pattern of the P.C.Os. in the workshops including the Integral Coach Factory. According to this decision, all posts in the P.C.O. except the Progress Wing continued to be ex-cadre posts and the tenure of these posts was directed to be strictly adhered to. The existing position regarding en-cadering of the posts in the P .C.O. in all wings of G Southern ~Iway and Progress Wing of hitegral Coach Factory was allowed to be continued. The writ appeal of the railway_ administration was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, against which the present appeal by special leave was preferred by the Railway Administration. H 895 A 8 c D E F G H 896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1991) 3 S.C.R. It was contended that the Inspection Wing performed the function of inspecting the quality of the products of the Integral Coach Factory and thereby ensured qnality control of the products, whereas the Pro· gress, Planning and Time Study Wings of the P.C.O. were involved in , the manufacture of these products and there was thus an intelligible differentia between the function of the Inspection Wing on one side and the remaining· Wings on the other. Allowing the appeal of the Railway Ad'!'inistration, this Court, HELD: I. In view of the nature of functions performed by the fonr different wings of the P.C.O., the High Court's view that the Inspection· Wing and the Progress Wing of the P.C.O. must be classified together and treated as separate cadres, cannot be accepted. It is significant that • even at some of the earlier stages, Inspection Wing was treated diffe- rently as a matter of policy. [90IH-902A) 2. The work of the Inspection Wing, is to inspect the quality of the manufactured products to ensure quality control, while the Pro- gress Wing is concerned with the stage prior to manufacture of the products. For the efficiency of the Inspection Wing which performs the duty of exercising vigilance over the production for the sake of ensuring ,, quality of the products, it is not unreasonable to think that a periodic rotation of its personnel would be conducive to efficient functioning of · the Inspection Wing. The permanency of personnel in the Inspection Wing can promote lethargy in them and may also tend to create. vested interests. The possibility of change therein makes the existing personnel more vigilant to avoid any lapse which could be discovered by the replacement. The highest possible standards of vigilance by them is i achieved by the possibility of reversion to the shop floor !lllainst their will if the required degree of efficiency and standa~d in performance of the duty is not maintained. [902B-D I 3. The work of the Inspection Wing being at the end point with no further scrutiny thereafter, rotation of its personnel is likely to promote the efficiency of the unit. This factor is sufficient to provide a reason- able basis for classification of the Inspection Wing differently from the Progress Wing and there is no ground to complain of discrimination, if • according to the Railway Board's policy, the Inspection Wing is not treated as a separate cadre like the Progress Wing. The power o~ the railway administration to formulate such a policy provided it is not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.