LexUNION OF INDIA (RAILWAY BOARD) AND OTHERS versus J.V. SUBHAIAH AND OTHERS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA (RAILWAY BOARD) AND OTHERS v. J.V. SUBHAIAH AND OTHERS ETC. DECEMBER 15, 1995 B [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND B.N. KIRPAL,JJ.] Service Law: Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964- Emp/oyees of Railway Co-operative Stores registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 19M-He/d, not regular Railway C employees in Class Ill post. The respondents being employed in Railway Employees Consumer Cooperative Store registered under Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act' 1964, tiled an application before Central Administrative Tribunal seeking declaration for being treated as regular Railway D employees in Class-III Posts and for consequential benefits including arrears of salary. Tribunal allowed the application based on decision of Madras Bench in Application No. 305/88, which was confirmed by this court, but the review was pending. E Aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, the Union of India preferred the present appeals. The judgment of this Court in the Madras case was also re-examined along with this appeal. Allowing the appeal of the Union of India, this Court F HELD : 1. The officers, employees and servants appointed by the Railway Co-operative Stores/Societies cannot be treated on par with Rail- way Servants under paragraph lO·B of the Railway Establishment Code,· nor they can be given parity of status, promotions, scales of pay, incre· ments etc. The officers, employees and servants appointed under the provisions in the Co-operative Societies Rules of 1964 would clearly indi· G cate that registration of the Society, election to the Committee, the term thereof, rights and liabilities of the members and office bearers are regn· lated under the Act. Power to appoint officers, employees and servants of the Society is given to the President or the Committee which is regulated by the bye laws, rules and the Act including service conditions with prior H approval of the Registrar. The appointments of the staff of the estab· 812 - .. U.0.1. v. J.V. SUBHAIAH 813 lishment, control and disciplinary actions are regulated under the A provisions of the Act, the Rules and the remedies provided under law : [826-C-D, 821-F] Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & Ors. Etc. v. Additional Indust1ial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, [1970) 1 SCR 205, relied on. 2. Establishment of institutes or clubs though recognised by the railway was only a welfare measure though their formation being nol mandatory. The kind of activities conducted depends among other things, on the funds available to them. If these employees were recognised as railway employees, it will have a snow balling effect on other welfare activities carried out by the Railway and other organisations and hence, there was no relationship of employer and employee. [822-D-EJ All India Railway Institute Employees Associations v. Union of India through the Chaimian, [1990) 1 SCR 594, relied on. 3. Appointment to a post or an office under the state is regulated Under statutory rules either by direct recruitment or appointment by promotion or appointment by transfer in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the qualifications specified. Any appointment otherwise, would be vertical transplantation de hors the rules. [825-A] 4. If the employees of the Societies like Co-operative canteens are declared to be railway servants, there would arise dual control over them by the Registrar and Railway Administration. [826-C] M.M. Khan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1990) 1 SCR 687, distinguished. 5. The employees covered by the order of the Madras bench may .be dealt with by the Railway Administration Appropriately but that could not form foundation to plead discrimination violating Article 14 of the Con- stitution. [826-B) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12148 to 12150 of 1995. B c D E F G From the Judgment and order dated 16th November, 1994 28th April, 1995 and 16th November, 1994 of the Central Administrative Tbnl. H 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A Hyd. Bench, Hyderabad in O.A. Nos. 749 of 1990, 1546 of 1994 and 141 of '4• 1991 respectively. K.T.S. Tulsi, A.S.G., N.N. Goswami, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Wasim Qadri and Vikas Pahwa for the Appellant. B K. Madhava Reddy, Guntur Prabhakar, D. Prakash Reddy and Ms. c C Ramamurthy for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. Leave granted in all the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.