http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

PETITIONER: H.S.GREWAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/08/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH T.C.(C) No.3/96,  SLP(C) No.  7076/95, TC(C)  Nos.  9-13/96, TC(C) No. 41/96 & W.P.(C) No.98/97                       J U D G M E N T M.JAGANNADHA RAO, J.      Leave granted in S.l.P. (C) No. 7076 of 1995.      These  cases   raise  common   questions  relating   to seniority of  officers in  the rank  of  Commandant/Security Officer/Asstt.     Inspector  General/Dy.Director/Divisional Security Officer.   The  Rules which  are relevant  are  the Railway  Protection   Force(Superior  Officers)  Recruitment Rules, 1974(hereinafter  called the  ’1974 rules’)  and  the Railway Protection  Force(Group A  *  B  Posts)  Recruitment Rules, 1981  (hereinafter called  the ’1981  Rules’).  Eight writ petitions  filed  in  various  High  Courts  have  been transferred to  this Court  and  registered  as  Transferred Petitions, to  be disposed of alongwith Civil Appeal arising out of the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on  appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the  Court.   We also  have before us an independent Writ Petition No.  98  of  97  filed  under  Article  32  of  the Constitution of India.      Before referring  to the  facts of the cases it will be necessary to refer to the heirarchy of posts and the mode of recruitment and  promotion under  the 1974  rules as well as under the  1981 rules and the conditions for eligibility for promotions.      Under the  1974 Rules  the hierarchy  of posts  was  as follows.   Initially the  recruitment was  to  the  post  of Assistant Commandant/Assistant  Security Officer in Class-II Group-B   (hereinafter   called   generally   as   assistant Commandant Cadre  for convenience  ) in the pay scale of Rs. 350-900.   Further promotion  from that post was to the post of    Commandant/Assistant     inspector    General/Security Officer(Class-I, Group-A)  in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1250. The  promotion   was  by   way  of   selection  through  the Departmental  Promotion   Committee  and  the  condition  of eligibility was  that a person should have put in 8 years of regular service in the post of Assistant Commandant.  So far as the  post of  Assistant  Commandant  at  lower  level  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

concerned, the  said cadre  was  consisting  of  30%  direct recruits to that post and 60% promotes from a post which was below the  post of  Assistant Commandant  and 10%  by way of transfer etc.   From  the post  of  Commandant  the  further promotion was  to the  post of Deputy Chief Security Officer in Class-I,  Group-A bearing  a pay-scale  of  Rs.1300-1600. The promotion  was through  the DPC  and  the  condition  of eligibility was  that a  person should  have put  in 5 years regular service as Commandant.      Under the  1981 Rules  which came  into force  from 8th May, 1981,  direct recruitment  to  the  post  of  Assistant Commandant (Group-B,  Class-II) in  the pay scale of Rs.650- 1200 was  completely stopped  and the  said post  was to  be filled entire  by  promotes  below  the  post  of  Assistant Commandant.   From the  said post  of  Assistant  Commandant (Group-B, Class-II)  instead direct promotion to the post of commandant  as  was  obtaining  under  the  1974  rules,  an intermediate post was created in Class-I in the pay scale of Rs.  700-1300  but  the  designation  was  the  same  namely Assistant Commandant/Assistant  Security Officer.    In  the departmental communications  this is  described as  Group-A, Class-I  Junior   Scale  post.     The  recruitment  to  the intermediate  post   was  40%   by  promotion  of  Assistant Commandants who  had put in 3 years of regular service.  The promotion being from Class II to Class I the promotes had to go through  the DPC.  The remaining 60% in this intermediate pst was  to be  filed up  by direct  recruitment through the Union Public  Service Commission.   The  next promotion from this   inter    mediate   post    was   to   the   post   of Commandant/Security       Officer/Assistant        Inspector General/Deputy    Director/Divisional    Security    Officer (hereinafter  generally   called   Commandants   cadre   for convenience).   In the  departmental communication  this  is described as Group-A, Class-I post Senior Scale.      For promotion  as Commandant,  assistant Commandants in Group-A, Class-I  are eligible  under the 1981 Rules after 5 years of  regular service.   The  promotion being from being Class I  to Class  I there  is no  PDC.   From the  post  of Commandant, the  further promotion  is to the post of Deputy Chief Security  Officer in Group-A, Class-I in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2000.   This post is also called a post of Senior Security Officer.   The  Commandant who  has put  in 5 years regular service is eligible Under the  1981 Rules  which came  into force  from 8th May, 1981, direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant (Group-B, Class-II)  in the  pay scale  of  Rs.650-1200  was completely stopped  and the  said  post  was  to  be  filled entirely by promotes below the post of Assistant Commandant. From the  said post of Assistant Commandant (Group-B, Class- II) instead  direct promotion  to the  post of commandant as was obtaining  under the 1974 rules an intermediate post was created in  Class-I in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1300 but the designation    was     the     same     namely     Assistant Commandant/Assistant Security  Officer.  In the departmental communications this  is described as Group-a, Class-I Junior Scale post.   The  recruitment to  the intermediate post was 40% by  promotion of  Assistant Commandants who had put in 3 years of  regular service.   The promotions being from Class II to  Class-I the  promotes had to go through the DPC.  The remaining 60%  in this  intermediate post was to be filed up by direct  recruitment  through  the  Union  Public  Service Commission.   The next promotion from this intermediate post was to  the post  of  Commandant/Security  Officer/Assistant Inspector   General/Deputy    Director/Divisional   Security Officer (hereinafter  generally called Commandants cadre for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

convenience).   In the  departmental communication  this  is described as Group-A, Class-I post Senior Scale.      For promotion  as Commandant,  assistant Commandants in Group-A, Class-I  are eligible  under the 1981 Rules after 5 years of  regular service.   The  promotion being from being Class I  to Class  I there  is no  DPC.   From the  post  of Commandant, the  further promotion  is to the post of Deputy Chief Security  Officer in Group-A, Class-I in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2000.  This post is also called a post of Senior Security Officer.   The  Commandant who  has put  in 5 years regular service  is eligible  for promotion to this post and the promotion  is through  DPC.  The further promotion is to the post  of Deputy Inspector General/Chief Security Officer and  finally   to  the  post  in  Inspector  General.    For convenience we  are setting  out a  tabular statement of the hierarchy of posts under the 1974 and 1981 Rules. RECRUITMENT RULES 1974      RECRUITMENT RULES 1981 INSPECTOR GENERAL           INSPECTOR GENERAL DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL/      DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL/ CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER      CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER DY. CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER  DR, CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER COMMANDANT/AIG/             COMMANDANT/SECURITY OFFICER/ SECURITY OFFICER            AIG/DEPUTY DIRECTOR                             ASSTT. COMMANDANT/                             ASSTT. SECURITY OFFICER ASSTT. COMMANDANT/          ASSTT.SECURITY OFFICER/ ASSTT. SECURITY OFFICER     ASSTT. COMMANDANT      It is  also necessary to note the number of posts in as much as  that has  some bearing  on the  issues in the case. Under the  1974 Rules  there were  138 posts in the cadre of Assistant Commandant,  48 posts  in the  cadre of Commandant and 6  temporary posts  of Deputy  Chief  Security  Officer. Under the 1981 Rules the posts of Assistant Commandant Group B Class II are reduced to 56 while 85 posts are allocated to the intermediate  post of Assistant Commandant Group A Class I(Junior Scale).  The number of posts of Commandant remained as 48 while posts of Deputy Chief Security Officer are 7.      After the  recommendation of  the 4th Pay Commissions a policy  decision  was  taken  to  disband  the  intermediate category  of  Assistant  Commandant  Group-A  Class-I(Junior Scale) and the result was that those in Assistant Commandant Group-B Class-II  stood equated w.e.f. 1.1.1986 as Assistant Commandants Group-A Class-I Junior Scale.      Facts and  contentions raised  by group  B  (Class  II) Officers:      The dispute  is between  two groups  of officers.   One group consists  of officers  who were recruited prior to the introduction of  1981 Rules  (i.e. before  8.5.1981) to  the post of Assistant Commandant Class-II Group-B and who by the time the  rules of  1981 came  into force  on  8.5.1981  had completed several  years of  service as Assistant Commandant Class-II Group-B  and were  awaiting  further  promotion  as Commandant Class-I  Group, Regular  promotions were not made because no  DPC was  held from 1981.  Some of these officers who had been promoted on adhoc basis as Commandants had even completed 5  years of  adhoc service  in that cadre and were expecting promotion  as Deputy Chief Security Officer.  Even after the  new rules  came into  force on  85.1981, and even after 1.1.1986,  since no  Departmental Promotion  Committee met for  more than  15 years,  the  result  was  that  these officers working  in higher  posts but  who  were  recruited before 1981  had still to reckoned as belonging regularly to the cadre  of Assistant  Commandant, now described under the 1981 Rules  as Class-II Group-B, However, notifications were issued  in   1990  first  promoting  some  of  them  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

intermediate  post   created  in   1981,  namely,  Assistant Commandant Group-A  Class-I Junior  Scale and then promoting them as  Commandants in  Class-I Group-A  on an adhoc basis. These officers  in  Asst.    Commandant,  Group  B,  Class-I recruited before  1981 contend  that there  is no difference between them  and those officers who were directly recruited to  the   newly  created   intermediate  post  of  Assistant Commandants, Class-I (Group A) after the 1981 rules inasmuch as the  examination which  they passed  before 1981  was the same as  the one  passed by these direct recruits after 1981 and that  the duties  and responsibilities are same for both for Assistant  Commandants  Group-B  Class-II  and  for  the intermediate post  of Assistant  Commandants Group-A Class-I (Junior Scale).   They  further contend  that under the 1974 Rules which  were in force at the time of their appointment, they had a vested right to be promoted as Commandant (Class- I)(Group-A) and the 1981 Rules would not affect their vested rights for  promotion after  8 years  of  service  as  Asst. Commandant and thus the introduction of an intermediate post in group  A (Class I) (Junior Scale) is violative of Article 16 of  the Constitution  of India.   They  also contend that this amounts  to giving  retrospective effect  to  the  1981 Rules.   They further say that the new direct recruits after 1981 in  group A  (Class I) have no right to be placed above them in  the seniority  list and  that they were entitled by virtue of  their seniority  to be promoted as Commandants in Group-A Class-I in preference to these direct recruits.  The above  contentions   are  raised   by  the   petitioners  in Transferred Case  Nos. 2,13  &  41  of  1996  and  the  writ petitioners who filed the writ petition in the Calcutta High Court out  of which  Civil appeal  arises and  also  by  the petitioners in  Writ Petition  No.98 of  1997 filed  in this Court.   We shall  briefly refer  to the  grievances of this group of officers from their writ petitions.  The petitioner in  T.P.No.2   of  1996   initially  joined   the  Army   as Commissioned Officer on 27.9.1963 and after being discharged from there  on 1.11.1967,  appeared before  the U.P.S.C. for selection as  Assistant Commandant  and he  was appointed on 14.3.1975 in Class-II Group-B as Assistant Commandant in the scale of  Rs.350-900.   He was  confirmed in the post w.e.f. 16.11.1978  and   was  later  promoted  on  adhoc  basis  on 27.12.1980 as  Commandant.   He put  in more  than  5  years experience as Commandant and was expecting further promotion as Deputy  Chief Security  Officer in the scale of Rs. 1300- 1600 after completion of 5 years by 27.1.1986 but in view of the  scheme   of  the   1981  rules   which  introduced  the intermediate post  above-mentioned, the authorities issued a notification dated  10.8.1990  promoting  him  as  Assistant Commandant Group-A  Class-I in  the Junior Scale of Rs.2200- 4000 w.e.f.  1.1.1986 (the previous scale was Rs. 700-1300). The  petitioner  submitted  a  representation  on  15.7.1991 contending  that   he  ought   to  have  been  confirmed  as Commandant in  Class-I Group-A  and also  promoted as Deputy Chief Security  Officer in preference to the direct recruits to  the   post  of   Assistant  Commandant  Group-A  Class-I introduced in  the 1981  rules.   He  then  filed  a    writ petition C.W.P. No.294 of 1991 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana for  quashing the  notification dated  10.8.1990 and for giving  him the  further promotion  in preference to the direct recruits  in Group-A Class-I.  The writ petitioner in the writ  petition which  is the  subject  matter  of  Civil Appeal who  was in  similar post,  had filed  writ  petition No.493 of 1988 in the Calcutta High Court.  He was appointed as Assistant  Commandant Group-B  Class-II in  1979.  In the writ  petition  the  "added  respondents"  were  the  direct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

recruits recruited  subsequent to  1981 in  Group-A Class  I Junior Scale.    In  Transferred  Case  No.13  of  1996  the petitioner had  filed Writ  Petition No.2883  of 1994 in the Rajasthan High  Court.   He was  also appointed as Assistant Commandant Class-II  Group-B on  13.3.1979.    He  has  also raised a  grievance about  appropriate weightage  not having been given to him for the service rendered in Group-B Class- II from  May 1979  to 31.12.1985.  He further mentioned that in the  seniority list  prepared on  8.4.1993 his  name  was shown higher  up by  giving him  weightage but  that several direct recruits  Assistant Commandants  Group-A Class-I were shown above  him and  this was  not  permissible.    He  was entitled to  be  promoted  in  preference  to  these  direct recruits to  the post of Commandant as well as to the higher post  of   Deputy  Chief  Security  Officer/Senior  Security Officer.   In T.C.  No.41 of 1996, the petitioner filed writ petition No.2235  of 1988  in the Madras High Court.  He was appointed as  Assistant Commandant  on 24.6.1980 in Class-II Group-B.  His grievance is also similar.  He prayed that the order  dated   4.2.1986  rejecting   his  representation  be quashed.  In Writ Petition No.98 of 1997 filed under Article 32  of   the  Constitution  of  India  in  this  Court,  the petitioner appeared  for the  Civil Services  Examination in 1978 and  was appointed  in  1980  as  Assistant  Commandant Class-II Group-B.  His grievance is also similar.      Facts and contentions of group A Class I (Junior Scale) Officers.      Coming to  the second  group  of  officers  namely  the direct recruits  in the  intermediate category  of Assistant Commandant Group-A  Class-I Junior Scale. their grievance is that after  the abolition of the distinction between group-A & Group-B w.e.f. 1.1.1986 pursuant to the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission, the Assistant Commandants of Group-B are being  unduly favoured and that those officers ought not to have been equated with them nor given any seniority above them.   The retrospective  seniority given  to some  of  the Assistant Commandants  Group-B Class-II with added weightage under  a  weightage  formula  had  suddenly  pushed  up  the Assistant Commandants  Group-B Class-II  above them  and has affected their  seniority in  group A.  They contend that it is wrong  on the  part  of  the  department  to  straightway promote  the   Assistant  Commandants  Group-B  Class-II  as Commandants in  Group-A Class-I  Senior Scale  without first promoting them  as  Assistant  Commandants  Group-A  Class-I through DPC.   In  fact no DPC was held after 1981, i.e. for more than  15 years.   They contend that even assuming these officers can  be treated as Assistant Commandants in Group-A Class-I within  the promotion  quota of the 40% from group B to group  A, it  was wrong  to give  them weightage  without going into  the question  whether they  were  eligible  i.e. whether they  had 3  years of  regular service  as Assistant Commandant Group-B  Class-II.   They could  not be given any promoting in  group A  from a date which was within a period of cars  of their  regular service in group B.  These points are raised  by the  writ petitioner in Transferred Case nos. 10 of  1996, 9  of 1996  and  12  of  1996  and  the  "added respondents" in the writ petition filed in the Calcutta High Court out  of which Civil appeal arises.  For example, seven petitioners in T.P. 10/96 namely Premjit Singh Rawal & Other (who filed  Matter No.2276/89  in the  Calcutta High  Court) contend that they were recruited as Group-A Class-I officers (junior Scale)  by the  Civil Services  Examination held  in different years  during 1980& 1982 and were already promoted to the  Senior Scale  post of Commandant.  Although the 1981 Rules introduce  85 pots  in Group-A  (Class-I) Junior Scale

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

only a  few have been so filled and the rest were being held by group-B  officers.   Uptill 1989, only 28 posts of direct recruits Group-A  (Class-I) have  been  filled  out  of  51. Petitioner  No.1  has  been  promoted  as  Commandant  after completion of  5 years  regular service  in Group-A(Class-I) while petitioners  Nos. 2  to 7  who  were  promoted  before completion of  5 years  regular service have since completed that period  of service.   While  so, rule were made in 1987 prescribing the principles of seniority of superior officers (vide Rules  95.1 and  95.2).   They point  out that Group-A officers were  drawing in  the scale  of  Rs.700-1300  while Group-B were  drawing in the scale of Rs.650-1200.  The IVth Pay Commission  recommended one pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000 to Assistant Commandants a equivalent posts w.e.f. 1.1.1986, in Group-A and Group-B. But the rules were not amended and this was clear  from the  orders promotion dt. 15.2.1989 given to Group-B Class-II  officers as Commandant(Senior Scale) on an adhoc basis.   This,  according to  them, was  arbitrary and illegal.   This was  done by  way of circular of the Railway Board  dt.   31.12.1985  which  permitted  group-A  officers (Junior Scale)  with 5  years (or 3 years) to be promoted as Commandant(Senior Scale).    The  circular  also  said  that Group-B Class-II  officers could  be promoted,  if they  had more than  3 years service in Group-B and have been adjudged suitable by a Committee for appointment regarding Commandant (Senior Scale)  vacancies for  adhoc  promotion.    But  the promotion of  Group-B officers  was being  made even  though Junior  Scale   Group-A  officers   (direct  recruits)  were available.     This  happened   when  orders   of  promotion dt.15.2.1989 and  6.1.1989, were  passed.    Thus  even  the circular dated  31.12.1989  was  being  violated  by  making direct  promotions   from  Group-B  Class-II  to  Commandant (Senior Scale)  skipping over Group-A(Junior Scale).  At the moment in  1989, out  of  60  posts  of  Commandant  (Senior Scale), only 7 were from Class-I(Group-A/Junior Scale) while 53 were  from Class-II  Group-B.  No DPC was held after 1980 for promotion  from Group-B  to Group-A.    Non  filling  of Group-A Class-I  Junior  Scale  by  direct  recruitment  was deliberate.  Yet another circular dated 21.8.1987 was issued by the  Railway  Board  that  before  promotion  of  Group-B officers for  Group-A as  on 31.12.1985, on a regular basis, they should  be ’screened’  w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and pending such screening, promotion  to Group-A  in scale  f Rs.  2200-4000 would be  treated as  adhoc.  This circular also showed that there could  be no  automatic promotion  from Group-B to the post  of  Commandant  (Senior  Scale)  without  first  being appointed to  Group-A, Class-I(Junior Scale).  The proposals sent to U.P.S.C. to promote Group-B officers as Group-A with retrospective effective  from 1.1.1986  are  therefore  bad. Such a  procedure would  make Group-A Junior Scale recruited after 1.1.1986  juniors to Group-B officers in service as on 1.1.86.   This was  also in  violation  of  the  quota  rule because for  the post  of Asstt.   Commandant Senior group A (Junior Scale)  only 40% Group-B Officers could be promoted. Therefore from  group-A to  the post of Commandant also, not more than  40% could come from group-B.  Under 1981 Rules, a promoted officer  to the  post of Group-A is not entitled to count his  service for  seniority if his promotion is beyond the quota  prescribed from  Group-B to  Group-A. The further decision to  give weightage  to  the  promoted  officers  on promotion to Group-A (w.e.f. 1.1.1986) to the extent of half of the  gazette years  of service  in Group-B  (subject to a maximum of  5 years)  - for  the purpose  of counting  their seniority in  Group-A Junior  Scale, was  also bad  for that would make  them steal a march over other directly recruited

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

Group-A officers  recruited before  1.1.1986.   Most of  the Group-B officers  were likely to get weightage of 5 years to 4 1/2  in Group-A.   This  was likely  to place  all Group-B officers so promoted as Commandant (Senior Scale) above such of the  Group-A officers  who were  yet to  be  promoted  as Commandants(Senior Scale).   60  Group-B officers  would  go above 1st  petitioner, 104  above 2nd  & 3rd petitioners and 125 officers  above petitioners  4 to  7, in the category of Commandants(Senior Scale).  They prayed, therefore, that all these policies by which Group-B officers were being favoured should be  struck down.   the  case of  the  petitioners  in T.P.No.9/96 (by  W.P. Matter  2410/89) filed in the Calcutta High Court  by Shashikanta  and others  and in T.P. No.12/96 (W.P. 8129/94)  filed by  P.K.Agarwal in  the Allahabad High Court and  of the  "added respondents"  in the Writ Petition from the  Calcutta High  Court out of which the Civil appeal has arisen, is the same.      Orders Passed  by the Calcutta High Court in the matter Under Civil Appeal      Before referring  to the points arising in these cases, it is  necessary to  refer to Civil Appeal and to the orders passed by  the learned  Single Judge  of the  High Court  of Calcutta and  the orders of the Division Bench in appeal, to the extent relevant.  As already stated, the writ petitioner there Rajeev  Kumar Sharma  was a Group-B (Class-II) officer appointed in 1979 while the ’added respondents" were Group-A officers(Junior Scale) recruited after 1981.  Petitioner was promoted as  Commandant on  20.8.90 alongwith  1985  Group-A officers.   The learned  Single Judge by his order in Matter No.493 of 1988 by judgment dated 4.3.94 rejected the plea of the petitioner  and held that a person specifically selected into Group-B  in 1979 could not claim seniority over Group-A officers who  were directly  recruited to  the  intermediate post of  Group-A officer.   But  having done so, the learned Judge dealt  with the  grievance of  the "added respondents" Group-A officers,  namely,  that  the  Union  of  India  was favouring  the   Group-B  officers   and   held   that   the petitioner’s promotion  as Commandant on 20.8.1990 alongwith 1985 Group-a  officers was  by way  of ’frog leap’ while the "added respondents"  promoted as  Commandants  from  Group-A post were  from the 1983 batch of group A officers, that the latter  were   promoted  as   Commandants  on   29.4.88  and therefore, the  petitioner from  group B  could  not  become senior to  them in  the category  of Commandants.    Learned Judge further  noticed that  the  promotion  of  the  "added respondents" on  29.4.88 as  Commandants was ’adhoc’ instead of on  regular basis  and this  was because  of the  interim order obtained  by the  petitioner in  the Writ petition and with a  view to rectify the same, the learned Judge directed the department      "to  treat   the  period  of  adhoc      promotion of  the added respondents      from 29th  April,  1988  till  date      i.e...as  regularise  and  consider      them  for  promotion  to  the  next      higher post...."      The Union  of India  filed an  Appeal in  1994 and  the Division Bench  held that the direction given by the learned Single Judge were only intended to remove the injustice done to Group-A  officers because of interim order passed in that very    writ     petition    in     favour    of     Group-B officers(Petitioners) and  there was  nothing wrong  in  the order of  the learned  Single Judge.   The  Court,  however, noticed that  there was  also another writ petition filed by group A  officers pending  in the Court and in that petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

by Premjit Singh Rawal the grievance of Group-A officers was against the  policies of the government in favour of Group-B officers.   The policies  of government  have not  reached a stage of  finality  and  hence  they  were  not  pronouncing anything on  the validity  of the  promotional  policies  in favour  of  Group-B  officers,  including  the  question  of weightage and  the notifications  dated 10.8.1990  by  which Group-B officers  were promoted  into a group-A scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and  further promoted  on 20.8.1990 as Commandants, within 10 days  They pointed out that the notification dated 10.8.1990 clearly stipulated that it would not prejudice the rights of  group-A officers.   The  Division Bench, however, ’modified’ the  direction issued by the learned Single Judge stating that  the said  direction would  be subject  to  the result of  the judgment  in the  Writ petition  filed by Mr. Premjit Singh  Rawal and  others (Now  T.P. 10\1996).   They made it  clear they  were not  suspending  the  order  dated 10.8.1990 and  20.8.1990 which were in favour of the Group-B officers.      Against this  order the  Union of  India has  filed the Special leave  Petition No.7076  of 1995  in  which  special leave has  been granted.   The  writ petition  filed by  Mr. Premjit Singh  Rawal &  Others in the Calcutta High Court is now transferred  to this  Court and  numbered as T.P.(Civil) No.10 of 1996.      Merits of  the  contentions  of  group.  B  (Class  II) Officers.      Having stated  the facts  and import  of the 1981 Rules etc.  we shall now deal with the validity of the contentions raised by the officers.  We shall take up the batch of cases filed by the Assistant Commandants, Group-B officers (Class- II) recruited  prior to 1981 Rules.  They contended that the introduction  of   the  post  of  Group-A(Junior  Scale)  of Assistant Commandant as an intermediate post was illegal and that the  procedure of  promotion  of  Group-B  officers  to Group-A and  then to  the post  of Commandant under the 1981 Rules  amounted   to  interference   with  vested  s    with retrospective effect to and that all recruitees into group B prior to  the 1981  Rules should  be governed  by  the  1974 rules.   It is  also argued that the Group-A officers passed the same examination as the Group-b officers and were having the same  powers and  duties.   No principle  for fitment of existing group-B officers as on the date when the 1981 rules came into force was specified in the rules.      In our  view, there  is no  merit in these contentions. There is  no question here of giving retrospective effect to 1981 Rules.   It  is, in  our opinion, open to the employer, namely, Union  of India  and it  is its  prerogative,  as  a matter of  policy, to introduce an intermediate post and lay down the  conditions of  eligibility of  Group-B officer  in Class-II for  promotion to such intermediate post of Group-A in Class-i(Junior  Scale).    Such  an  introduction  of  an intermediate post  does  not,  in  our  opinion,  amount  to interfering with  any vested  rights  cannot  be  interfered with, is  to be  accepted as correct.  What all has happened here  is   that  an   intermediate  post  has  been  created prospectively for future promotions from Group-B Class-II to Group-A Class-I.   If,  before these rules of 1981 came into force, these  officers were eligible to be directly promoted as Commandant  under the  1974 rules but before they got any such promotions,  the 1981 Rules came in obliging them to go through an  intermediate  post,  this  does  not  amount  to interfering with  any vested  rights.   Further before  1981 among the  Group-B officers  in Class-II,  there were direct recruits upto  30% and  promotees upto  60% and  transferees

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

upto 10%.   It  would not  be correct  to permit  the direct recruits in  class-B to  be governed  by the  1974 Rules for direct promotion  to the  post  of  Commandant  leaving  the promotees and  transferees to  go  by  the  1981  Rules  and through the intermediate post.  Further, these officers were specifically recruited  to Group-B as they came lower in the merit list  at the  time of  their appointment prior to 1981 while those  recruited after the 1981 Rules were persons who were specifically  recruited for  the intermediate  post  in Group-A.   Further there  is no  difficulty with  regard  to fitment of  the existing Assistant Commandants (Class II) on the coming into force of the Rules of 1981 for all those who were Asstt.   Commandants  or of  equal  grade  came  to  be designated  as  group  B  (Class  II)  officers.    For  the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in these contentions of group B Officers.      Merits of  contentions of second Batch - group A (Class I) (Junior Scale Officers:      We shall  now deal with the writ petitions filed by the group A  (Class-I) officers.   We  may first  refer  to  the T.P.No.10/96, being the Writ petition filed by Premjit Singh Rawal &  others in  the Calcutta  High Court,  the result in which is to govern the civil Appeal.  In that writ petition, there is an order dt 28.8.89 of another learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court as follows:      "....the  interim   order   already      passed is  modified to  the  extent      that the respondent shall prepare a      fresh promotion policy of the Asst.      Security  Commissioners  which  the      respondent says  has not  yet  done      but there  should  not  be  adverse      affection of  the position  of  the      present writ  petitions  "till  the      disposal of  the writ  petition and      without leave of this Court."      Therefore a ’fresh promotion policy’ was to be prepared and placed before Court.      Pursuant to  the above  direction of  the Calcutta High Court, fresh  policy decisions  have since  been  taken  and placed before  this Court.   The U.P.S.C. has written to the Government of  India on 10.12.1991 indicating the "promotion polices" requesting  the Government to place the same before the Court.   It  wrote another  letter dated  3.8.1993 after ’re-examining’ the  question of  weightage given  to group-B officers.   A letter  of the  Union of  India dated 30.11.76 which laid  down principles of ’weightage’ applicable in all departments of  Railways(except the  Medical department) has also been placed before us as being the basis for the policy in the above letters so far as weightage is concerned.      Further a combined provisional seniority list of Junior Scale Group-A  officers in  position as on 8.4.1993 has been placed before  us in  W.P. 98/97.   It however appeared that this  was  prepared  without  fully  giving  effect  to  the principles stated  in the above letters dated 10.12.1991 and 3.8.1992.      Learned counsel  for  the  group-A  officers  submitted before us  that the  fresh draft policy letters of the Union of India  dated  10.12.1991  and  3.8.1992,  read  with  the weightage  principles   laid  down   in  the  earlier  dated 30.11.1976 of  the Railway  Board offend  the rights  of the Group-A Class-I  officers in as much as Group-B officers are retrospectively  promoted   into  Group-A   w.e.f.  1.1.1986 without a  DPC and they were in addition given weightage for the said  promotion in  respect of  50% of  their service in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

Group-b.   They could  not, in  any event,  be  promoted  to Group-A posts  from a  date anterior  to the  very  date  of creation of  Group-A posts under the 1981 Rules.  The entire exercise  was  violative  of  the  1981  Rules  relating  to promotion.   The promotion of eligible officers from Group-B to Group-A  as per the 1981 Rules can be only for 40% of the 85 posts  in Group-A(Junior  Scale) the  rest 60% in Group-A are to  be filled  by direct  recruitment.  It is only after the promotion  to group A through DPC is completed, that too in respect  of  Group-B  officers  having  3  years  regular service, that  their promotion from Group-A(Junior Scale) to the Commandants  category could  be considered.  The letters of the UPSC dated 10.8.1990 and 20.8.1990 amounted to giving double promotion  to Group-B  officers and were illegal.  To the  extent  the  draft  new  policy  dated  10.12.1991  and 3.8.1992 read  with the  weightage principles dt. 30.11.1976 were applied  to group  B Officers, there was clear is clear violation of  the Rules.   It  was also  submitted that  the proceedings dated  30.11.1976 were  not  applicable  to  the Group-B officers appointed under the R.P.F. Act.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Union of India and  the counsel  for Group-B  officers contended that the  quota   rule  had   broken  down  because  of  want  of recruitment to  all posts  in Group-A,  and hence thee is no question of  applying the  40% quote rule for promotion from Group-B to  Group-A.   The UPSC  and the Government of India took  into   consideration  that  the  IVth  Pay  Commission recommendations have  virtually  withdrawn  the  distinction between Group-B  and Group-A  w.e.f. 1.1.86.   Further, from 1981 there  was no DPC for promotion from Group-B to Group-A and therefore  UPSC and  the Union  of India  have now  come forward with  an equitable  solution which  is fair  to both groups.  The weightage principles dt. 30.11.1976 are clearly applicable to  these Class I officers.  These Rule have been upheld by  this Court  in A.K.Nigam Vs. Sunil Misra 1994 (2) Suppl. SCC 245      Counsel for group B officers raised an extra point that under these  two letters  of the  UPSC, to  the  extent  the provisional seniority  list does not give the benefit of the 60% direct  recruit quota  in Group-A  to the promotees from Group-B, the  list is  bad.   Counsel also  stated that  the provisional list  before Court  does not  show that  it  was prepared giving  effect to  the letters dated 10.12.1991 and 3.8.1992.      The point  that arises for consideration is whether the principles laid  down in  the draft  policy of  the Union of India as prepared by the UPSC in its letter dated 10.12.1991 and as  modified by  the letter  dated 3.8.1992  is fair and equitable for  reckoning the  inter se seniority between the group  B   and  group  A  officers  for  purpose  of  higher promotion?      In our  view,  these  two  letters  contain  very  fair proposals by the UPSC which take into account all aspects of the case  both on  facts and  on law and these proposals are liable to  be accepted.   We  shall  briefly  refer  to  the principles recommended  by the  UPSC in  these two  letters. The proposal  of the  UPSC dated  10.12.1991 communicated to the Union  of India is as follows:  It states that there wee 85 posts  of post  commandant(Group-A) initially  during the period 1981  to 1985  and were  required to be filled 40% by promotion of Group-B officers and 60% by direct recruitment. Promotion of  Group-B officers  was after  they had put in 3 years  regular  service  into  Group-B,  So  far  as  direct recruitment for  48 posts  under 60%  quota  was  concerned, although 48  candidates were  selected.   Only 26 joined and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

even out  of them,  9 left the service leaving on 17.  There was, therefore,  a shortfall  of 31  (48-17) Group-A  Junior Scale officers  in the  direct recruitment  quota of 48.  So far as the promotion quota of 32 posts was concerned, no DPC was held  from 1981.  Thus a total of 63 posts(31 & 32) were vacant in  Group-A Junior  Scale. "The  letter says that the Service Commission  has approved that all these posts may be filled  by promotion by holding yearwise DPC."  The yearwise details from  1981-85  regarding  the  number  of  vacancies falling under  direct recruitment  quota,  promotion  quota, number intended,  number recommended,  number proposed to be diverted from  direct recruitment  to promotion quota are as follows: Year  No of  No. in  Vaca- Short No.  No.  Total       vacan- tended ncies fall  of   of  no. of       cies   for    in pr-in    dir- vac- vacanc-              direct motion D.R. etc  anc  ies to              recrtt. quota  quota recr-ies  be filled                                 uit  to be by promo-                                 left dive- tion.                                 during rted                                 the from                                 year. Dr quota                                       to promo-                                        tion quota ------------------------------------------------------------ 1981   13       8      5       4      -       4        9 1982   14       8      6       4      2       6        12 1983   20      12      8       3      3       6        14 1984   13       8      5       6      2       8        13 1985   20      12      8       5      2       -        15 ------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL  80      48     32       22     9       24       63      It  is  was  stated  that  the  proposed  diversion  of vacancies  from  the  direct  recruitment  quota  was  being suggested in view of the fact that the offices coming in the yearwise eligibility  zones had completed more than 10 years of service  in Group-B as against the requirement of 3 years service, to become eligible for promotion to Group-A. It was also stated  that promotion  would be  based  on  merit-cum- seniority.   The procedure  to be  followed is  indicated in para-3 of the said letter as follows: (i)   The  number  of  officers  to  be  considered  in  the eligibility zone  would be  calculated with reference to the number of vacancies to be filled up in each year. 5 officers would be considered against one vacancy and 8 officers would form the  zone of consideration for 2 vacancies and 10 for 3 vacancies.   Thereafter the  eligibility zone would be twice the number  of vacancies plus. 4 Officers finding a place in the eligibility zone as stated above would be considered for promotion senioritywise  on the  basis  of  their  ACRs  for previous 5  years with  regard to  the year  of the vacancy. While assessing  ARCs, gradings  will be  assigned  to  each officers  such  as  ’Outstanding’.    ’Very  Good’,  ’Good’, ’Average’ and  ’Unfit’.  All officers assessed ’Outstanding’ would be  placed enblock above officers categorised as ’Very Good’ and similarly those who are categorised as ’Very Good’ would be  placed above  those who  are categorised as ’Good’ and those  who are  categorised as  ’Good’ would  be  placed above those  categorised as ’Average’.  Officers in the list so prepared  would be recommended for promotion based on the number of  vacancies. Only  those who  were graded as ’Good’ and above would be recommended for promotion. (ii) The officers  promoted as mentioned above would also be eligible to  the advantage  of ante-dated  seniority to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

extent of  50% of  the total  service  rendered  in  Group-B subject to  a maximum  of 5 years.  However, this ante-dated seniority would  not go beyond 1.6.1981 i.e. date from which the group A junior time scale was introduced in RPF. (iii)     Officers not recommended against vacancies of 1981 to 1985  would be  placed in  Group-A w.e.f. 1.1.1986 on the basis of  screening which  has already been conducted by the UPSC.   Such placement  will not entitle them to any benefit of weighted  seniority and  they will be placed below the 17 direct recruit  officers of  Group-A who  were in service on 1.1.1986. (iv)  Inter-se   seniority  of   direct  recruits  vis-a-vis promotees  would   be  in  accordance  with  the  number  of vacancies in each year and the quota for direct recruits and promotees.      The further  letter  of  the  U.P.S.C.  dated  3.8.1992 modifies the  policy  in  the  above  letter  in  regard  to weightage.   It says  that the  U.P.S.C. has re-examined the question of  weightage in  the seniority  to be given to the promotees  Group-B  officers.    In  order  to  protect  the interests of  Group-A officers  and to  be fair  to  Group-B officers  also,   the  Commission   proposed  the  following equalable  criteria: (a)  Only 82  promotees who  are to  be recommended  to  the actual promotion  quota vacancies,  should get the weightage in seniority. (b)  All the  other 31  vacancies  decided  to  be  diverted yearwise from  1981 onwards  from direct  recruitment  quota should be clubbed together and treated as vacancies of 1985. The officers  to be promoted against these 31 vacancies need not be  given any  weightage in seniority and they should be placed  enblock   below  the   direct  recruits   of   1985. Accordingly the  formulation contained  in paras  3(ii)  and 3(iv) of  office letter  of even number dated 10.12.1991 was to be treated as modified to the above extent.      In other  words, weightage was given to some extent and the breaking  down of  the quota  rule was  also taken  into account but both these principles were balanced against each other.   Finally the  letter dated  3.8.1992 further  states that on  the basis  of above criteria, it would be necessary to prepare  separate yearwise  panels i.e.  one for  the  32 promotion quota  vacancies of  1981 to  1985 and another for the 31  diverted vacancies  being treated  as that  of 1985. The panels  for the  31 diverted vacancies would be prepared from amongst the left over officers after preparation of the panels for  the 32  vacancies falling  in  actual  promotion quota.   As such  the Ministry was requested to intimate the break-up of  reservation for  the 32  actual promotion quota vacancies and  31 diverted vacancies separately, so that the proposed DPC for the vacancies of 1981 to 1985 could be held at the earliest.      So far  as 50%  weightage given  to group B officers is concerned it  is based on an earlier letter dated 30.11.1976 issued by  the Railway  Board.   That letter  deals with the grant of  weightage to  promotees to  all Class  I posts  in regard to  half of  their service  rendered in the post from which they  are promoted.   It deals with the principles for determining seniority  of Class-I  officers  in  the  Indian Railways.  The contents of the letter read as follows:      "Consequent on the deletion of para      8 of  Appendix I  to Indian Railway      Service   of    Engineers,   Indian      Railway    Service     or    Signal      Engineers, Indian  Railway  Service      of Electrical  Engineer Recruitment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

    Rules, 1962,  paragraph  9  of  the      Appendix I  of the  Indian  Railway      Service  of   Mechanical  Engineers      Recruitment  Rules,  1968  and  the      I.R.S.S.  Recruitment  Rules,  1969      for   determining    seniority   of      officers on  their  appointment  to      Class I Service, Board have decided      to circulate  the principles,  laid      down for  determining the seniority      of officers,  appointed to  various      Class   services   from   different      sources, specified  in the  various      Recruitment Rules  except  officers      of the  Medical Deptt.   and  other      misc,  categories.      These   are      enclosed as  an  Appendix  to  this      letter."      So far as Appendix is concerned,  we are concered here, with principles (i) and (vii):      "Principle (i)  - The  seniority of      officers,  appointed   to   various      Indian Railway  Services (Class  I)      shall be determined on the basis of      the "date  for  increment  on  time      scale"    to     be    specifically      determined   in    each   case   in      accordance with these principles.      Principle(vii) -  In  the  case  of      Class   II   officers   permanently      promoted to  Class i  Services,  if      two or  more than  two officers  ar      promoted on  the  same  date  their      relative seniority  will be  in the      order of selection.  Subject to the      aforesaid provision  the  seniority      of officers,  permanently  promoted      from Class  II to Class I Services,      shall  be   determined  by   giving      weightage based on:      (a) the year of service connoted by      the  initial   pay   on   permanent      promotion to Class I Service; or      (b) half  the total number of years      of continuous  service in Class II,      both officiating and permanent;      Whichever is  higher, subject  to a      maximum weightage of five years."      Identical  principles   of  weightage  were  upheld  in A.K.Nigam’s case  - 1994  Supple (2)  SCC 245.   This  Court observed as follows:      "One thing  may be noticed that the      seniority in  IRPS is  not governed      by the date of joining. If one look      at the  Principles, as  approved by      the President,  Principle (i)  is -      "the   seniority    of    officers,      appointed to various Indian Railway      Services   (Class   I)   shall   be      determined  on  the  basis  of  the      ’date for  increment on time scale’      to be  specifically  determined  in      each case  in accordance with these      principles."      It   is   no   an      invariable  rule   that   seniority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

    should be  determined only  on  the      basis of  the respective  dates  of      appointment to  the post  and  that      any  departure  from  it  would  be      unreasonable and  illegal.   It  is      open to  the rule  making authority      to take  a  note  of  the  relevant      circumstances obtaining in relation      to each  department  and  determine      objectively the  rule  that  should      govern the  inter se  seniority and      ranking.  The dates of increment of      the appellants in time scale having      been specifically determined by the      authorities before  respondent No.1      joined  service,  he  has  to  rank      junior to the appellants."      Thereafter, this Court further observed as follows;      "The    principle    of    granting      seniority on the basis of weightage      of past  service and  lower service      to  the   category   of   promoting      officers is  well  known  and  well      recognised    in     the    service      jurisprudence."      This Court  also referred  to an  earlier  judgment  in State of  Andhra Pradesh  & Another  Vs. K.S. Muralidhar and others [1992  (2)  SCC  241]  where  weightage  formula  was accepted.      In view of the above-said judgment of this Court, It is clear that the principle of weightage proposed to be applied in these letters of the UPSC is unassailable.      The other  contention raised by learned counsel for the Class-A officers was that a reading of the opening paragraph of the letter dated 30.11.1976 of the Railway Board (already extracted) shows  that the said principles were not intended to be  applied to  a statutory service like the one governed by the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957.  This contention, in our view, is not correct. We have examined this aspect in depth and  we are convinced that letter dated 30.11.1976 was intended to  apply to these Class-1 officers in RPF as well. The opening  paragraph of  the  letter  in  fact  says  that principles in  the Appendix  thereto are  applicable to  the officers except  those in  the Medical  Department.  In fact the decision of Supreme Court in A.K.Nigam’s case related to Indian Railway Personnel Services Officers.      Further, it  is not  as if  these group  B officers are being given  promotion in  group A  from a date when group A posts were  not created.  It is specifically made clear that in spite of weightage, none will be given a date anterior to 1.6.81, the date of creation of these group A posts.  Nor is the extent  of weightage  unrestricted.  It is provided that it will not exceed 5 year in any case.  Interse-se seniority is to  be based  on vacancies  in each year and on the quota for direct  recruits and  promotees.  The point that group B officers cannot be given promotion to group B from a date on which they  are not eligible as per 1981 rules is also taken care not  eligible as  per 1981 rules is also taken care of. DPC panels  are to be prepared yearwise as stated in the two letters.   Weightage is  confined to  the  promotion  quota. Again while  recommending that unfilled vacancies in direct- recruitment quota  are to  be diverted it is stated that for such promotees,  no weighate  is to be given while promoting to them into the diverted vacancies.      We are  of the view that a fair and proper balancing of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

the rights  of group A and group B officers has been made in these draft  policies.   The contentions of group A officers as well  as of group B officers against these draft policies are therefore  rejected.   Thus the  new policy has our full acceptance and  the authorities,  can take  further steps on the basis.      Implementation of the Policy:      It will  now be  for the  department to  implement  the above  said  policy  and  after  taking  the  various  steps indicated therein,  publish a  provisional seniority list of Asstt.   Commandants, etc.  (group A  officers)  (Class  I). invite objections  and upon  finalising  the  same  ,  after disposal of  objections (restricted  only to  the manner  of implementation of  the fresh  policy), proceed  to  issue  a final  seniority   list  of   group  A   Class  I  Officers. Thereafter respondents  will publish a provisional seniority list in  the category  of Commandant  and  equivalent  posts again after  following such  steps required  in law,  invite objections  and   dispose  of  the  same  and  finalise  the seniority in  that category.   This  procedure can  then  be carried upwards.      Having regard  to the long litigation in the matter, we are of  the view that within four months from now, the steps required for implementation of the policy will be completed, and a  provisional list of Asstt.  Commandants, etc. group A officers (Class  I) will  be issued  and the  final list  be prepared within  three months  thereafter after disposing of objections.   Then for the regular promotions to the post of Commandants, etc.   provisional  list  of  Commandants  etc. category  could   be  issued   within  four  months  of  the publication of the final list of Asstt.  Commandants group A (Class I),  invite objections,  dispose them of and finalise the list.   The  same procedure  could be  followed  upwards expeditiously.      The above  directions will  dispose of  all the matters before us  subject to  certain specific directions which are necessary in  two matters,  namely, T.P. 3\96 and t.P. 11\76 which we  are being  taking up separately.  T.P. 3 of 1996:- The petitioner filed the writ petition in the Allahabad High Court in  1991 (W.P.  736\91).   Petitioner passed the Civil Services (Main Examination) 1979 and was appointed as Asstt. Commandant Cadre  on 6.6.1981.   He  joined on 22.6.81.  The 1974 Rules  were replaced by the 1981 Rules w.e.f. 8.5.81 in 650.1200 scale.  The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1981 Rules  were applied  to  him  and  he  has  treated  as belonging to group B (Class II), even though his appointment letter says  in para  1 that he will be governed, in respect of matters  not specifically  referred to  in the  order, by various other  provisions, including  the Railway Protection Force  (superior   officers)  Recruitment  Rules  1974  and, therefore he  cannot be governed by the 1981 Rules.  In that writ petition,  two officers  who were  appointed in 1985 in group A  filed impleadment application dated 10.5.91 and got themselves  impleaded  application  dated  10.5.91  and  got themselves impleaded as respondents 4,5.      Now the  1981  Rules  clearly  mention  that  Assistant Commandant group  A will  be in  scale 700-1300 and that the Assistant Commandant  group B  will be  in  scale  650-1200. From the  order of appointment of the petitioner it is clear that he  was put  in the  scale of Rs. 650-1200 i.e. group B Class II  as per  new Rules  of 1981  and, therefore,  it is clear, he  accepted the  appointment in  group B as per 1981 Rules.   Petitioner cannot  therefore  rely  on  the  clause ’1974’ Rules in the appointment order.      Learned counsel made a submission that the notification

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

in which 1981 Rules were published used the words "except in respect of  things done  or omitted  to be done" and that he was therefore  governed by  the 1974 Rules in respect of the examination   conducted   in   1979   by   virtue   of   the advertisement.   We are  unable to agree.  We do no have the date of  publication f  the results  etc.   In out view, the offer of  appointment in  the scale  of Rs. 650-1200 is very clear and  was  made  on  6.6.81  and  it  was  accepted  by petitioner without  demur.   We, therefore,  do not find any merit  in   this  writ   petition.    In  other  petitioners grievances  have   not  been  redressed  and  no  DPCs  were conducted.   It was suggested to counsel that the petitioner could submit a fresh representation within one month and the respondents could  dispose of the same as early as possible. We direct  accordingly.   In other  respects the  directions given in the main judgment, to the extent relevant, apply.      All the matter are disposed of accordingly.