LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. versus E. S. SOUNDARAJAN ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B D E 1200 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. v. E. S. SOUNDARAJAN ETC. . April 4, 1979 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.] Sen'ices-Railway Service-Two categories Cornmercial Clerks and Assistant Station Masters/Station Masters-Pay scales substantially siniilar but higher limit fur ASM/SM-Commercial Clerks becoming ASMJSM-Revision of set~ uµ by Governnient to provide Opportunity j.ar increment for Commercial Clerks -Comrnercial Clerks who became ASM/SM Sustaining loss in pay-Validity and per1nissibility of revision. The MSM Railway, one of several British Indian Companies, V.'as merge.J in rhc Indian Railways. Th'e employees under the MS~1 Railway, who con~citLI~,;d the respondents, fell in two categories namely Commercial Clerks and ~Ai..ssistant Slation Masters/Station Masters. The pay-scales at the va.rious grades were subs. tantially similar, although at the high'er levels the Assist.ant Station Masters/ Station Ma.sters had higher scales of pay. In 1930 and thereafter several Cvm- mercial Clerks went over and became Assist,ant Station !v1asters/Station ~fa&t.:r5 and to some exfent they enjoyed certain advantages on this score, an4 contina~d to work out their respective fortunes in the administrative service on the basis of the then rules and scales- of pay. As 90 per cent of these posts \Vere occupied by the lowest category, ·and there was long stagnation the appellant, Union of India around 1956 felt that there was need for revision of the set-up and with a view to give more relief and opportunities for increments to the Commercial Clerks, revised the pay scales, which was called the New Deal. When the New Deal was brought in some Assistant Station Masters/Station Masters found that nltliough they were senior to certain Commercial Clerks at the early stages, their pay became less than that of Commercial Clerks. ( Being aggrieved, they agitated their grievances before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. That High Court took the view that Commerci>i Clerks and ASM/ .f-< F SM were substantially treafed alike and when certain disparities and emoluments G H arose on account of the New Deal discrimination ensued. The special leave petitions to this Court a.gainst this judgment were dismissed. Certain employees also assailed the New Deal in the Madras High Court and the High. Court observed that though it was not possible to agree with the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court it had to be followed as the said decision hoJ became final. In the appeals to this Court, it was argu'ed on behalf of the appellant that the Madra.s High Court bad expressly dissented from this reasoning of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and contended that Commercial Clerk and ASMs/SMs fall into two different categories and on. the basis of the rulings of this Court there could not be any case of discrimination when distinct categories in Government service had different treatment in th'e course of the service, and olily such of the employees as had a chance of going up in emoluments or drawing increments attributable to the New Deal could claim the b'enefits or advantages under the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Hi~h Court. On behalf of the respondents, it \. UNION V. E. S. SOUNDARAJAN I201 was argued that the second decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was A correct and that th'e illustration given by the High Court graphically to cla.rify its conclusion was realistic and correct. HELD· : 1. It is not possible to -agree with the conclusion reached by the Andhra Pradesh High Court so long as Commercial Clerks and ASMs/SMs fall into two different categories. The well~'established proposition is that there can- not be ai case of discrimination merely because fortuitous circumstances arising B out of some peculiar developments or situations create advantages or disadvan- tages for one group or the other although in the earlier stages they were, more or less alike. If one class has not been singl'ed out for special treatment, the mere circumstances of advantages accruing to one or the other cannot result in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution. [1204E-Gl ReserFe Bank of India v. N. C. Paliwal & Others [1977] I S.C.R. 377, C referred to. 2. The employees (ASM/S1.fs) \Vho, had they continued as Commercial Clerks would not have had any increments on account of Lhe New Deal, could not claim such increments on the basis of the Andhra Pradesh High Court deci- sion.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.