http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: A. RADHAKRISHNAN AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/09/1991

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) SHARMA, L.M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 2080            1991 SCR  (3) 895  1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 208 JT 1991 (3)   594  1991 SCALE  (2)469

ACT:     Civil Service--Railway--P. C.O. Wings--Staffing  pattern Separation  of  Progress  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 Integral Coach Factory--Staffing pattern--Treating Progress Wing separate cadre--Railway Board’s decision dated 13.9.84--Whether discriminatory.

HEADNOTE:     The  P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Factory  comprises  of four wings which include the Progress and Inspection Wings.     The order dated 8.6.1982 by General Manager stated  that in  accordance  with  the  Railway  Board’s  approval,   the Progress Wing 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.     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  21.9.1984  conveying  Railway  Board’s  decision   dated 13.9.1984  regarding the staffing pattern of the P.C.Os.  in the workshops including the Integral Coach Factory.  Accord- ing  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 Southern Railway and Progress Wing of Integral Coach Factory was allowed to be continued.     The  writ appeal of the railway administration was  dis- missed  by  the Division Bench of the  High  Court,  against which  the present appeal by special leave was preferred  by the Railway Administration. 896     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 quality  control of  the  products, whereas the Progress, Planning  and  Time Study  Wings of the P.C.O. were involved in the  manufacture of these products and there was thus an intelligible differ-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

entia  between  the function of the Inspection Wing  on  one side and the remaining Wings on the other. Allowing  the  appeal of the  Railway  Administration,  this Court,     HELD: 1. In view of the nature of functions performed by the  four  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 differently as a matter of policy. [901H-902A]     2.  The work of the Inspection Wing, is to  inspect  the quality  of  the  manufactured products  to  ensure  quality control, while the Progress 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  perma- nency of personnel in the Inspection Wing can promote  leth- argy  in them and may also tend to create vested  interests. The possibility of change therein makes the existing person- nel more vigilant to avoid any lapse which could be  discov- ered  by the replacement. The highest possible standards  of vigilance  by them is achieved by the possibility of  rever- sion  to the shop floor against their will if  the  required degree of efficiency and standard in performance of the duty is not maintained. [902B-D]     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 reasonable basis  for classification  of the Inspection Wing differently from  the Progress Wing and there is no ground to complain of discrim- ination,  if  according to the Railway Board’s  policy,  the Inspection Wing is not treated as a separate cadre like  the Progress  Wing. The power of the railway  administration  to formulate  such a policy provided it is  not  discriminatory being  rightly  not  challenged, this  conclusion  alone  is sufficient  to uphold the action of the railway  administra- tion. [902D-F] 897     4.  The  authority  Of the Railway Board  to  adopt  the policy  to  bring about the necessary changes in  the  staff pattern  for improving the efficiency of the  administration of units under its control and for the purpose of streamlin- ing the Organisation provided there was no discrimination is undoubted. [903A]     S.K.  Chakarborthy  and Ors. v. Union of India  &  Ors., [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 425, referred.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3838  of 1988.     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.6.1987 of the Tamil Nadu High Court in W.A. No. 555 of 1984.     K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, B.K. Prasad, A.K. Srivastava, P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellants. A.T.M. Sampath and K.V. Sreekumar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     VERMA, J. This matter brings to the fore once again  the ineptitude with which litigation is conducted quite often on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

behalf of the Government of India and State Governments even when important issues having lasting and wide  repercussions are involved. The point in this case relates to the validity of  a policy of the railway administration and is likely  to affect  the staff pattern in several units. Inspite of  this fact,  to  support validity of the impugned policy  the  re- quired materials were not produced in the High Court and  to overcome the adverse decision several opportunities given by us  to produce the entire relevant record were not  availed. The  learned Additional Solicitor General informed us  after several  adjournments that better performance is not  possi- ble.  We,  therefore, concluded the hearing and  proceed  to decide  on the available materials. It is  indeed  fortunate for  the appellants that our conclusion is in their  favour. The railway administration with its countrywide network  can help  to improve this situation by a genuine effort in  this direction and thereby contribute also to saving of  needless expense and time. We, therefore, direct that a copy of  this judgment be sent to the Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India.  In view of the situation indicated above, we are mentioning only 898 those facts which are necessary for deciding this matter and which  are  accepted by both the sides. It is  not  unlikely that there may be more material in the available records  of the appellants to support our conclusion.     Briefly  stated the controversy in this  matter  relates only to the employees working in the Inspection Wing of  the Production Control Organization (for short ’P.C.O.’) of  the Integral  Coach  Factory, Perambur. The grievance  of  these employees in the Inspection Wing is to the implementation of the circular dated 8.6.1982 of the General Manager’s  Office (Personnel  Branch/Fur.),  Madras  of  the  Integral   Coach Factory  issued in supersession of the earlier circulars  on the  subject with the Railway Boards approval to  treat  the Progress  Wing alone of the P.C.O. as a separate cadre.  The grievance  of the employees in the Inspection Wing  is  that there is no reasonable basis for this classification of  the Progress  Wing  of the P.C.O. separately  denying  the  same benefit  to  those  in the Inspection Wing.  In  short,  the employees of the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. also want  to be  in a separate cadre like those in the Progress Wing  and absorbed  perma  nently in the P.C.O. without  the  risk  of being  reverted to the shop floor from which they  had  been taken and where their lien continues.     A  brief history of the Production Control  Organization in  the Integral Coach Factory, Perambur, may now be  given. The P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Factory was constituted  to ensure quality control of the production in the factory.  It comprises  of  four  wings which include  the  Progress  and Inspection Wings. It appears that the policy for manning the different  wings of the P.C.O. remained nebulous  for  quite long and several changes therein were made from time to time to  accommodate  the staff’s point of view. To  begin  with, persons  from different trades in the shop floor were  taken on deputation for the different wings of the P.C.O. For  the Progress  Wing  of the P.C.O., there was  also  some  direct recruitment, but the same was stopped after some time proba- bly  in the year 1958 and it was decided that the  posts  in the Progress Wing be filled by taking persons on  deputation from  the shop floor. On 22.4.1963, the Railway  Board  laid down  uniform  policy for the P.C.Os. in all  units  of  the Indian  Railways  according to which all the  posts  in  the P.C.Os. were made ex-cadre and every employee posted in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

P.C.O.  was to be from a trade in shop floor. The  employees transferred from the shop floor to the P.C.O. were to retain their  lien in the shop floor and deemed to be on  temporary transfer.  This gave rise to some practical  difficulty  and the  permanently  absorbed staff in the  P.C.O.  were  given option to revert to the 899 shop floor. The staff directly recruited in the P.C.O.  were to  be  allotted a trade and given the  option  for  getting absorbed  in the shop floor.. On 13.10.1964, a  modification was  made  which is contained in the G.M. (P)’s  letter  No. PB(S)/M/6/ATC which refers to the Railway Board’s letter No. E(NG) 59SR 6-22 dated 22.4. 1963. This was the first  stage, as  described by the learned Additional  Solicitor  General, for the employees in the P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Facto- ry,  Perambur.  At the next stage. this policy  was  further modified  for  the  Inspection  Wing  by  a  circular  dated 13.8.1965  of the Office of the GM/PB/Shell of the  Integral Coach  Factory.  This  was a  half-way  measure  implemented straightaway in the Inspection Wing, but could not be imple- mented in the other three wings, namely, Progress,  Planning and  Time Study, because of certain  practical  difficulties therein. According to this modification, the Inspection Wing was  to form a separate ex-cadre unit and the  employees  in the  Inspection  Wing were given proforma  position  in  the cadre  posts in their trade and could be reverted  to  their parent  cadre in the shop floor in the position  which  they occupied  in the shop floor. This again met with  difficulty in implementation giving rise to circular dated 29.9.1967 of the  Office of the General Manager/Personnel Branch  ‘Staff’ of the Integral Coach Factory. Option was given to the staff in the Progress, Planning and Time Study Wings of the P.C.O. to  get absorbed and interpolated in the shop floor  leaving the Inspection Wing separate. This circular dated 29.9. 1967 was  struck  down by the Madras High CoUrt  vide  its  order dated  22.8.  1975 in a petition filed by employees  of  the shop  floor  on the ground that the General Manager  of  the Integral  Coach Factory had no power to  act  inconsistently with  the  Railway  Board’s circular and the  remedy  is  to modify the Railway Boards circular dated 22.4.1963.  Accord- ingly, the procedure laid down in the order dated 29.9. 1967 was cancelled and all posts in the P.C.O. were declared  ex- cadre  by a circular dated 28.8. 1977 of the General  Manag- er’s  Office (Personnel Branch/Fur.) of the  Integral  Coach Factory.  A modification m the earlier proposal was made  by this  order. All employees were to be allotted a  trade  and given option either to go to the shop floor or remain perma- nently  in the P.C.O. However, this too could not be  imple- mented on account of the protest of the staff and the unions representing them. At the next stage, a proposal was made by the  Integral  CoaCh Factory to the Railway Board  which  is contained  in  the  letter dated 1.3. 1982  from  the  Chief Personnel  Officer,  Integral  Coach Factory  to  the  Joint director,  Establishment, Railway Board. This was in  pursu- ance to the suggestion of the staff itself that the Progress Wing  alone be treated as separate cadre in the  P.C.O.  and not the remaining wings. Reasons in support of the  proposal were also given therein. The Railway Board 900 conveyed  its  approval to this proposal in its  letter  No. E(NG)  1-81 PM 1/259(CA) dated 20.3. 1982. This led  to  the issuance  of  the order dated 8.6.1982 by  General  Manager, Integral Coach Factory, stating that in accordance with  the Railway  Board’s  approval, the Progress Wing alone  of  the P.C.O.  would  be  a separate cadre and  not  the  remaining

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

wings. As a result of this decision, the Inspection Wing  is not  treated as a separate cadre unlike the  Progress  Wing. This  is the basis of the grievance of the employees of  the Inspection Wing which led to the filing of the writ petition giving rise to this appeal.     Writ Petition No. 4468 of 1982 filed in the Madras  High Court  by the respondents was allowed by the learned  Single Judge on 7.4.1984. Thereafter, another step was taken by the railway administration which may be mentioned. The  Integral Coach  Factory  issued  a circular  on  21.9.1984  conveying Railway  Board’s  decision  contained in  the  letter  dated 13.9.1984  regarding the staffing pattern of the P.C.Os.  in the workshops including the Integral Coach Factory.  Accord- ing  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 Southern Railway and Progress Wing of Integral  Coach  Factory  was allowed to  be  continued.  In short, it was a reversion to the initial stage contained  in the  order dated 22.4.1963 of the Railway Board  except  for the  Progress Wing. The writ appeal of the railway  adminis- tration  was  thereafter  dismissed by  the  High  Court  on 22.6.1987.  The further facts are not material for  deciding the point in controversy.     In  short,  the employees of the Inspection  Wing  which include  the respondents, contend that they are entitled  to be treated similarly as the employees of the Progress  Wing, whose  continuance in the P.C.O. without the risk of  rever- sion  to the shop floor is assured by the adoption  of  this policy. This contention of the respondents has been accepted by  the High Court. The acceptance of the respondents  claim results in striking down the Railway’s policy to this extent of not treating the Inspection Wing also as a separate cadre like  the  Progress Wing. It also affects the  prospects  of those  in the shop floor who are denied the chance of  being taken  in the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. because  of  the continuance  permanently  of those already  there  retaining their lien in the shop floor. It is admitted that the  serv- ice  conditions in the P.C.O. are better than those  of  the corresponding  posts in the shop floor. This is  the  reason for  those in the P.C.O. not wanting to revert to  the  shop floor and the keenness of persons from the shop 901 floor to go to the P.C.O. Some employees working in the shop floor have preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9774 of 1990 arising out  of a connected matter and have supported the  stand  of the railway administration taken in Civil Appeal No. 3838 of 1988.     It  is common ground before us that the Inspection  Wing of the P.C.O. performs the function of inspecting the quali- ty of the products of the Integral Coach Factory and thereby ensures  quality  control  of the  products.  The  Progress, Planning and Time Study Wings of the P.C.O. are involved  in the  manufacture  of these products and come  at  the  stage relating  to manufacture of the products. There is  thus  an intelligible differentia between the function of the Inspec- tion Wing on one side and the remaining wings of the  P.C.O. on  the other. The background indicated earlier  leading  to the  decision  by the Railway Board that the  Progress  Wing alone would be treated as a permanent cadre in the  Integral Coach  Factory and not the others, was reached on the  basis of experience over a long period and was in consonance  with the  opinion of the Staff Council representing the views  of the  staff  of the Integral Coach Factory. It  appears  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

continuity  in Progress Wing and rotation in the  Inspection Wing  was  considered desirable for better  efficiency.  The Railway Board being competent to effect necessary changes in the staff pattern of the various units under its control for the  purpose of streamlining the Organisation and  improving their efficiency, took this decision for this purpose  which is consistent with the view of the staff Council  represent- ing  the interest of the entire staff in the P.C.O. It  does appear that the railway administration did want at one  time to  treat  all  units in the P.C.O.  as  separate  permanent cadres  but  practical difficulty in the  implementation  of that policy and opposition by the staff impelled it to  give up  the same. Even here we find that while those already  in the  Inspection Wing want to remain there  permanently,  the others  who  are in the shop floor and would be  denied  the prospect of being taken in the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. if  the  respondents’ contention is upheld, are  opposed  to this  view.  The decision of the Railway  Board,  therefore, takes  into account all points of view and makes an  attempt to  reconcile the conflicting interests while  ensuring  im- provement  in the efficiency of the unit. If as a matter  of policy  the Railway Board approved the proposal made by  the management  of  the  Integral Coach  Factory  to  treat  the Progress  Wing alone of the P.C.O. as a separate  cadre  and not  so the remaining wings including the  Inspection  Wing, the same cannot be faulted unless it is held to be discrimi- natory  or  arbitrary. In view of the  nature  of  functions performed by the four different wings of the P.C.O., we  are unable to agree with the High Court’s view that the  Inspec- tion 902 Wing and the Progress Wing of the P.C.O. must be  classified together  and treated as separate cadres. It is  significant that even at some of the earlier stages, Inspection Wing was treated differently as a matter of policy.     The work of the Inspection Wing, as indicated earlier on the  basis of undisputed facts before us, is to inspect  the quality  of  the  manufactured products  to  ensure  quality control, while the Progress 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  perma- nency of personnel in the Inspection Wing can promote  leth- argy  in them and may also tend to create vested  interests. The possibility of change therein makes the existing person- nel more vigilant to avoid any lapse which could be  discov- ered  by the replacement. The highest possible standards  of vigilance  by them is achieved by the possibility of  rever- sion  to the shop floor against their will if  the  required degree of efficiency and standard in performance of the duty is not maintained. 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  reasonable 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 of the railway  administration to formulate such a policy provided it is not discriminatory being  rightly  not  challenged, this  conclusion  alone  is sufficient  to uphold the action of the railway  administra-

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

tion.  The  contrary view taken by the  High  Court  cannot, therefore, be sustained.     We  find  that the competence of the  Railway  Board  to change  the  staff pattern of the P.C.O.  in  the  Kharagpur Railway  Workshop of South Eastern Railway,  was  challenged before  the  Central Administrative Tribunal.  The  decision there  was contained in a Memorandum of 1979 declaring  that the  posts in the P.C.O. in the Kharagpur  Railway  Workshop would  be treated as ’ex-cadre’ differently from the  policy in  Integral Coach Factory. The Tribunal rejected the  chal- lenge  based on discrimination between two units and a  spe- cial leave petition filed in this Court was dismissed.  This Court  in  S.K. Chakraborthy and Ors. v. Union  of  India  & Ors., [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 425 upheld the 903 authority  of  the Railway Board to adopt such a  policy  to bring  about the necessary changes in the staff pattern  for improving  the  efficiency of the  administration  of  units under  its control and for the purpose of  streamlining  the Organisation provided there was no discrimination.     Consequently,  the  appeal is allowed and  the  impugned judgment  of  the High Court is set aside resulting  in  the dismissal  of the Writ Petition filed in the High Court.  No costs.  A  copy of this judgment be sent  to  the  Chairman, Railway Board as directed. V.P.R.                                                Appeal allowed. 904