http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: JAGHNATH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/11/1991

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) KANIA, M.H.

CITATION:  1991 SCR  Supl. (2) 152  1992 SCC  Supl.  (2) 105  JT 1991 (4)   238        1991 SCALE  (2)925

ACT:     Civil Service-Compositors in printing presses--Promotion --Categorisation of "highly skilled" and "sis’lied"--Senior- ity basis--Validity of.     Civil  Service--Compositors in printing  presses--Promo- tion  --Stagnation  between cadres--Removal  of--Ratio  pre- scribed.

HEADNOTE:     Petitioner  claiming that he and other similarly  placed Compositors  working in the Government of India presses  all over India were entitled to the status and salary of Compos- itors, Grade I in the "highly skilled" category with  effect from January 1, 1966 on the ground that the decision of  the Himachal  Pradesh High Court in Thakurs case was  applicable in  principle  to  all the Compositors,  filed  the  present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.     The High Court in Thakur’s case held that the  categori- sation  as  "highly skilled" and "skilled" on the  basis  of seniority  alone was unreasonable and discriminatory. As  no special  leave  petition against the judgment  of  the  High Court was brought to this Court the judgment became final. Over-ruling Thakur’s case and dismissing the petitions  this Court,     HELD: I.Academic pursuit and experience are two  primary sources of learning. A Compositor’s job in a printing  press is a skilled job requiring special technique. In such a  job it would be reasonable to measure the standards of skill  by length  of  experience. The High Court fell  into  error  in quashing the classification based on experience arising  out of length of service. [157 B]       2.   "Highly skilled" category was created  to  handle the nature     work which involved higher skill than the original  hand composition.  The  Compositors with longer service  and  who were found fit 153 for promotion were appointed to Grade I and were categorised as "highly skilled". Experience itself is merit and can be a valid basis for classification. [157 C-D]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

   3.  Keeping in view the large number of Compositors  all over the country and to remove stagnation the ratio  between the two cadres should be 33 1/3: 66 2/3 %. [158 D]     4.   The  respondents  are  directed  to  increase   the strength of the cadre of Compositor Grade-I ’highly skilled’ to 33-1/3 percent with effect from April 1, 1992. [158 D]     Thakur’s  Case   (Writ petition C.W.  No.  61/69)  dated 21.5.1971; overruled. State  of  U.P.v. J.P. Chaurasia, [1989] 1 S.C.C.  121;  re- ferred to.

JUDGMENT:     EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil No. 651 of 1986. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).     P.P.  Rao,  Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Vandana Saggar  and  Ms. Monika Mohil for the Petitioners.     V.C. Mahajan, K. Swamy, Ms. A. Subhashini and Ms. Niran- jana Singh for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KULDIP  SINGH, J. This petition under Article 32 of  the Costitution  has been filed by Prahalad Singh claiming  that he  and  other similarly placed Compositors working  in  the Government  of India Presses all over India are entitled  to the status and salary of Compositors, Grade I in the "highly skilled" category with effect from January 1, 1966, The said relief  is claimed on the sole ground that one  T.R.  Thakur has  already  been  given Grade I in  the  "highly  skilled" category as a result of the judgment in his favour given  by the  Himachal  Pradesh High Court. The writ  petition  (C.W. 61/69)  filed  by  T.R. Thakur was allowed  by  the  learned Single  Judge of the High Court on May 21,1971  and  Letters Patent Appeal against the said judgment was dismissed on May 9,  1979.  The High Court held that  the  categorisation  as "highly  skilled"  and "skilled" on the basis  of  seniority alone was unreasonable and discriminatory. No special leave 154 petition against the judgment of the High Court was  brought to this Court and as such the judgment has become final.     Prahalad  Singh  and others have claimed that  they  are entitled  to the benefit of the judgment given by  the  High Court in Thakur’s case. According to them the said  judgment is  applicable in principle to all the  Compositors  whether they  were parties before the High Court or not. This  peti- tion came for hearing before a Bench of this Court  consist- ing of R.S. Pathak, CJI, M.N. Venkatachalia, J. The Bench in its order dated April 28, 1989 observed as under :--               "The  principal  objection  to  the  grant  of               relief to the Petitioner and those for whom he               claims  to act is the gross delay  with  which               the writ petition appears to have been  bought               in this Court. To surmount that difficulty the               petitioner  relies  upon  the  plea  that  the               judgment  of the High Court in  T.R.  Thakur’s               case  is a judgment operative in principle  in               favour  of  all compositors  situated  in  the               circumstances  in  which  T.R.  Thakur   found               himself. There are other pleas which have been               taken  by the petitioner, but the  substantial               one  is whether he and the  other  compositors               can enforce in their favour the benefit grant-               ed  in T.R. Thakur’s case although  they  were               not parties to that proceeding. At first blush

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

             it  would seem that the High Court  considered               the  particular  facts  of  T.R.  Thakur,  the               petitioner  before  it,  and  while   granting               relief it appears, in terms, to have  confined               it  to T.R. Thakur. It is an  important  point               whether, as the petitioner now contends before               us, the direction issued by the High Court can               be  regarded as a direction operative  in  re-               spect  of  all  compositors  employed  in  the               Government  of India Presses all  over  India,               The point is important since the objection  on               the  plea of laches seems to be a  substantial               one  in  view of the several  compositors  who               have  over  the  years been  promoted  to  the               category of "highly skilled" compositors,  and               interfering with their status now could  mate-               rially  prejudice them. At the same  time,  it               cannot  be  doubted that there  can  be  cases               where  although  the  facts  of  a  particular               petitioner have been taken into  consideration               what the Court indents, when it adjudicates on               the  claim, is to lay down the law to  be  ap-               plied by the respondents to all similar situa-               tions. There are other cases where relief  may               be  granted or refused upon the  consideration               of  a question involved --the  question  being               one  which  affects  several  persons  of  the               category  to which the petitioner  belongs  --               and  the  grant or refusal of the  relief  may               turn on               155               the  particular  facts of that  case.  Various               possible categories of cases can be  conceived               in this context. We think it desirable that in               cases such as this the Court should  formulate               a  set  of appropriate  guidelines  indicating               when  directions rendered by the Court in  one               particular  case can be regarded as  operative               in other cases. As the matter will be governed               both  by principle and by the practice of  the               Court,  it  is appropriate that this  case  be               referred  to a larger Bench for  consideration               on this and the other points arising in it."     This  is  how the writ petition has come before  us  for final heating. It is not necessary to go into the merits  of the  question  posed by the Two Judges Bench of  this  court because  we are of the view that the High Court judgment  in Thakur’s case does not lay-down the correct law.     The facts which led ’to the filing of the writ  petition by Thakur are as under:     Prior to January 1, 1966, there was one grade of Compos- itors (Rs. 110-Rs. 180) in the Government of India  Presses. In  the  year  1963 a committee called  "The  Committee  for Categorisation of the Government of India Press Workers" was constituted to review the classification of posts of  indus- trial  workers in the Government of India printing  presses. The said Committee, inter alia, made the following recommen- dations :--               "There  was  an equally  persistent  and  wide               spread demand from the workers that the  cate-               gory  of  Compositors  should  be  treated  as               highly  skilled  instead  of  skilled  as   at               present. We have very carefully examined  this               case  as well and were unable to subscribe  to               this  demand. Hand composing in the  Govt.  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             India  presses is essentially a  skilled  job.               The  Managers  were, however, of  the  opinion               that 10-15% of the Compositors are  frequently               expected to handle composition work of  mathe-               matical or scientific discourses. For this,  a               knowledge  application  of  diacritical  marks               superior and inferior letters/figures,  scien-               tific  signs/symbols etc. are essential.  This               work,  admittedly, involved much higher  skill               than originally hand composition. The  Commit-               tee,therefore,   recommend  that  a   suitable               percentage  of compositors should be  upgraded               to the highly skilled category with pay  scale               of Rs. 175- 205. This category should be given               an  appropriate designation to distinguish  it               from  the  ordinary grade of  Compositors  who               should still be in the skilled               group."               156 Accepting  the  above  recommendations,  the  Government  of India, by an order dated March 14, 1966, divided the  exist- ing cadre of Compositors     Compositors  Grade-I (Rs. 150- Rs. 206) and  Compositors Grade-II  (Rs. 11 O- 180). It was further decided  that  the Compositors Grade-I would be classified as "highly  skilled" and Compositors Grade-II as "skilled". The ratio of  Grade-I to Grade II was fixed as 20: 80. The initial constitution of the cadre of Compositors Grade-I was done by appointing  20% of  the Compositors on the basis  of  seniority-cure-fitness but trade test was made obligatory for future promotions  to Grade-I.     While  implementing the above said decision of the  Gov- ernment  of India, 18 Compositors who were senior to  Thakur were  given  the  pay scale of  Compositor  Grade-I.  Thakur challenged  the  denial of higher pay  scale  of  Compositor Grade-I to him on the ground that he and the 18  Compositors who  were promoted were performing the same duties and  were holding similar posts which were inter-changeable. According to  him  all of them were performing the duties  of  "highly skilled" Compositors and as such the higher grade could  not have  been denied to him. The learned Single  Judge  allowed the  writ petition and held that the categorisation  of  the senior-most  persons as "highly skilled" was  arbitrary  and discriminatory.  The  learned  Judge  issued  the  following directions:--               "In  the light of the above I am of  the  view               that the petitioner is entitled to the  relief               prayed  for  and direction is  issued  to  the               respondents  not to enforce the revised  scale               of  pay  in such a manner as  to  subject  the               petitioner  to a lower scale of pay  than  the               one  allowed to the compositors who have  been               so fixed in the scale laid down for the highly               skill compositors."     The  Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Union  of  India against  the judgment of the learned Single Judge  was  dis- missed  by the Division Bench of the High Court on the  fol- lowing reasoning:--               "The  contention of the appellants, as  raised               by  them in paragraph 5 of their return.  that               by  length of service a person  acquires  more               and  more  skill and, therefore, the  test  of               seniority for the purpose of putting a  person               in  the higher category of Grade I was  justi-               fied, not acceptable because it is very  well-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

             known  that a mere length of service does  not               always result in more skill in the working  of               the person concerned. Seniority would have  of               course  relevance  in a  situation  where  two               persons  having equal skill are to be  consid-               ered. But unless such a situation arose it  is               very much evident that initial placing of the               157               present  incumbents on the post of  Compositor               in  the higher category of Grade I  could  not               have  been  done  in total  disregard  of  the               degree of skill which each of these incumbents               possessed."                   Academic  pursuit and experience  are  two               primary  sources of learning.  A  Compositor’s               job  in  a  printing press is  a  skilled  job               requiring special technique. In such a job  it               would  be reasonable to measure the  standards               of  skill  by length of experience.  The  High               Court, in our view, fell into error in  quash-               ing  the  classification based  on  experience               arising out of length of service.                   It is obvious from the recommendations  of               the   Committee  quoted  above  that   "highly               skilled"  category was created to  handle  the               nature  of  work which involved  higher  skill               than  the original hand composition. The  Com-               positors  with  longer service  and  who  were               found  fit  for promotion  were  appointed  to               Grade  I  and  were  categorised  as   "highly               skilled".  Experience itself is merit and  can               be  a  valid basis  for  classification.  This               Court  in State of U. P. v.  j.P.  Chaurasaia,               [1989] 1 S.C.C. 121 has upheld the classifica-               tion based on experience as reasonable classi-               fication.  Jagannatha Shetty, J. speaking  for               this Court observed:               "Article 14 permits reasonable  classification               founded  on  different bases. It is  now  well               established  that  the classification  can  be               based on some qualities or characteristics  of               persons grouped together and not in others who               are left out. Those qualities or  characteris-               tics must, of course, have a reasonable  rela-               tion  to the object sought to be achieved.  In               service matters, merit or experience could  be               the proper basis for classification to promote               efficiency in administration. He or she learns               also by experience as much as by other  means.               It  cannot be denied that the quality of  work               performed  by persons of longer experience  is               superior  than the work of newcomers. Even  in               Randhir  Singh case, this principle  has  been               recognised.  O. Chinnappa Reddy,  J.  observed               that  the classification of officers into  two               grades  with  different scales  of  pay  based               either on academic qualification or experience               or  length  of service is  sustainable.  Apart               from  that, higher pay scale to avoid  stagna-               tion  or  resultant frustration  for  lack  of               promotional  avenues is very common in  career               service. There is selection grade for District               Judges. ’there is senior time scale in  Indian               Administrative  Service.  There  is  supertime               scale in other like services. The  entitlement

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

             to  these higher pay scales depends upon  sen-               iority-               158               cure-merit  or merit-cure-seniority. The  dif-               ferentiation  so made in the same  cadre  will               not amount to discrimination. The  classifica-               tion  based  on  experience  is  a  reasonable               classification.  It has a rational nexus  with               the  object  thereof. To  hold  otherwise,  it               would  be detrimental to the interest  of  the               service itself."     We,  therefore, hold that the judgment of  the  Himachal Pradesh  High Court in T.R. Thakur’s case does not  lay-down correct law and is overruled. The only ground on which  this petition is based, having become non-existent, the petition- ers  are not entitled to the relief claimed by them and  the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.     We are, however, of the view that the cadre of  Composi- tors  Grade-I ’highly skilled’ should be enlarged. The  Com- positors  are  persistently demanding the upgrading  of  the whole  of the cadre. The "Committee" also  recommended  that suitable percentage be upgraded. The Government created  the higher  grade  for 20% of them. Keeping in  view  the  large number  of  Compositors all over the country and  to  remove stagnation we are of the opinion that the ratio between  the two cadres should be 33-1/3: 66-2/3%. We, therefore, commend to the respondents to increase the strength of the cadre  of Compositor Grade-I ’highly skilled’ to 33-1/3 per cent  with effect from April 1, 1992.     The  writ  petitions is disposed of in the  above  terms with no order as 0 costs. V.P.R.                                         Petition dismissed. 159