Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M. Srinivas Reddy, S/O Late Narsimha ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By Its ... on 17 August, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(5)ALT197
JUDGMENT G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. This appeal is preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, (for short "the Act") by the Union of India, aggrieved by the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, in O.A.A. No. 59 of 1998.
2. The 1st respondent died during the pendency of the appeal. The respondents filed the claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, (for short "the Tribunal") stating that late Mohammed, was a resident of Krishna (Railway Station) in Kaarnataka State. It is stated that he went to the station at midnight, intervening 5/6-01-1995 to catch the Rayalaseema Express, to go to Yadgir, for the purpose of purchasing fertilizers. They pleaded that after purchasing the ticket, he boarded the train at about 1:45 hours and slipped from it, when the train was in movement, and died instantly. It was their case that he was a bon fide passenger and that they are entitled to be paid compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Railways Act.
3. The appellant filed a written statement. It has denied the very occurrence of accident, resulting in the death of the deceased as well as its liability. A plea was raised to the effect that the ticket, which was said to have been recovered from the body of the deceased, was in fact, planted with an oblique motive. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, as compensation, to the respondents, through its order dated 04-11-1998. Hence this appeal.
4. Sri T. Rama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there were contradictions in the version of the respondents herein, as regards the death of the deceased, and that the appellant had established through cogent evidence, that neither the deceased was a bona fide passenger nor the death was on account of an accidental fall. He contends that the evidence on record discloses that the ticket, said to have been recovered from the body of the deceased, was not issued at the relevant point of time. Placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Union of India, South Central Railways, Secunderabad v. K. Balakrishnaiah in W.P. No. 29414 of 1998 he submits that the deceased failed to exhibit the requisite care and prudence, and the Railways cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the occurrence of the death, on account of accidental slip of the deceased, was proved beyond doubt, and that no exception can be taken to the order under appeal. He contends that there are no contradictions in the versions put forward by the respondents at all.
6. The respondents claimed that the deceased died on account of an accidental fall from train No. 7430 - Rayalaseema Express at Krishna Railway Station, at 1:45 hours, in the night intervening 5/6-01-1995. The appellant filed written statement denying the occurrence of the accident itself. The Tribunal framed necessary issues. PW-1, the 2nd respondent, deposed about the contents of the claim petition. She pleaded that her husband went to the Railway Station to catch the train to travel to Yadgir, for the purpose of purchasing fertilizers. She has also stated that her husband died on account of accidental fall. She deposed that during the course of inquest a ticket bearing No. 41311, cash of Rs. 540/-, and a gold ring were recovered from the dead body of the deceased. On behalf of respondents, the Assistant Station Master at duty, at the relevant point of time, was examined as RW-1. Copies of F.I.R., inquest report, and DTC register were marked through him. On a consideration of the material before it, the Tribunal found that the respondents are the legal heirs/dependants of the deceased; the death of the deceased was on account of an accidental fall, and that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and awarded the compensation, as provided for under the Act.
7. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there were several contradictions in the versions of the respondents. He contends that at one place they pleaded that the deceased died on account of the accidental fall; whereas at other places they pleaded that it was on account of a jerk in the train. In this connection, it needs to be noticed that though the first person to have witnessed the accidental death was RW-1 himself and though the F.I.R., and the inquest were conducted with the participation of the officials of the Railways, in the written statement they have denied the occurrence of the accident itself. Be that as it may, RW-1 categorically stated that he has seen the deceased boarding a reserved bogie, 4th from the rear end of the train, and that his hastily getting down from it. This proves beyond any doubt that the deceased boarded the train and fell from it, resulting in his death. The causes or reasons for his falling from the train were not spoken to, by anyone. None of the respondents were eye-witnesses to the incident. In view of the evidence of RW-1, any discrepancy as to the cause of death becomes insignificant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased cannot be treated as a bona fide passenger. This contention also cannot be accepted, in view of the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant itself. The F.I.R. and inquest report were marked through RW-1. In the inquest report, it is categorically stated that the body of the deceased was found on the tracks; a Constable of the Railway Police and Points-man, heard cries of passengers and thereafter they noticed the dead body. The report reads;
"There are; 2 - hundred rupee notes; 6 - fifty rupee notes, and 4 - ten rupee notes; the total amount being Rs. 540/-. There is a gold ring of about six grams with a green stone to the ring finger of the left hand. In the pocket, there is hand book and a train ticket No. 41311 from Krishna to Yadgir."
9. The evidence on record discloses that it is the Railway officials, who had the access to the body, ever since the accident took place. The body was on the Railway platform, in the custody of the Railway officials. Respondents came to know about it at later point of time. The question of anybody planting a ticket into the dead body, under these circumstances, does not arise. Further the fact that the deceased was having cash with him, is a factor, which leads to inference, that he was not a person without means to purchase a ticket.
10. It is sought to be impressed upon this Court that the ticket was not purchased at the relevant point of time at all. On the basis of the extract of DTC register marked as Ex. R-1, learned counsel for the appellant submits that ticket bearing No. 41311 could have been sold early in the morning and not at midnight. It has come in the evidence of RW-1 that he sold tickets from 41307 to 41311, meant for Yadgir, between 00:00 hours to 07:00 hours on 06-01-1995. He did not state that after train No. 7430, any other train halted at that station. The other evidence was not at all supportive. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, does not call for any interference.
11. It is contended that the deceased did not exhibit proper care and prudence for his safety. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court (1 supra). It was held therein that where a passenger fails to exhibit the requisite care, attention and prudence, and thereby suffers injury, or death, the Railways cannot be held responsible to pay the compensation. To apply this principle, it has to be established through proper evidence, that the passenger in question failed to exhibit such care, attention, or prudence. In their various manuals, the Railways have stipulated the standard norms to be followed by its employees as well as passengers to ensure safety. Prohibition of embarking into, or getting down the train, while it is in motion, etc., are such steps. To disentitle the dependants of a deceased, on the ground that latter did not exhibit the requisite care and prudence, necessary factors have to be pleaded and proved.
12. As observed earlier, the appellant started with a plea that the accident has not taken place at all. The only witness examined by it, however, stated that he has seen the passenger, i.e., the deceased entering into a reserved compartment and falling from it. Whether such a fall has taken place on account of lack of care and prudence on the part of the deceased, or death caused on account of any external factors, were not even spoken to, much less, established. Such grounds cannot be inferred. Hence, it cannot be said that the accident occurred on account of the failure of the deceased, to exhibit proper care, caution and prudence.
13. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
?1 2004 (1) ALT 100 (F.B.) Advocates :
For the Petitioners : Mr. J.M.Naidu For the Respondents: asename> Mr. Gouri Shankar Sanghi for Rmapp JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners are working as Constables in Railway Protection Force appointed on various dates from 1998 to 2000. The third respondent who is the Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad circulated a notification vide proceedings No. P/LE/228/New Zones/Vol. I, dated 04-6-2004 inviting option from Group-C staff having graduate qualification (Technical/non-technical categories) to join as Ministerial Staff in the time-scale of Rs. 3050 - 4590 RS (RP) on bottom seniority as Junior Clerks on permanent basis as a change of Cadre from one category to another category at North Eastern Division. The last date for exercising the option was fixed as 30-6-2004. The Divisional Security Commissioners forwarded all the applications submitted by the petitioners to the second respondent instead of sending them to the third respondent. The last date for forwarding the applications to the third respondent was
2. 12-7-2004. The second respondent instead of forwarding the applications to the third respondent declined to forward those applications through proceedings No. X/P.95/Policy dated 12-7-2004 on the basis of the first respondent's proceedings viz., Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)I/2002/PM2/9 dated 11-8-2003, (RBE No. 139/2003) and letter No. E(NG)I/2002/PM2/9 dated 24-3-2004 (RBE No. 64/04), which are based on the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi vide O.A. No. 2661 of 2003. The petitioners being aggrieved by the action of the second respondent in issuing the proceedings dated 4-6-2004 and the proceedings of the third respondent dated 12-7-2004 basing of the first respondent's letters dated 11-8-2003 and 24-3-2004 approached this Court for issuing a writ of Mandamus holding them illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are working as Constables in the Railway Protection Force. They are under the administrative control of the Director General and under the overall supervision of the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. The General Manager issued a notification dated 4-6-2004 providing the facility of option to the Group-C staff to those who possess Graduate Degree (Technical/non-technical categories) to join as ministerial staff in the time-scale of Rs. 3050 - 4590 RS (RP) on bottom seniority. In the said notification the General Manager mentioned that it is decided to extend the facility of option to all the graduates (technical/non-technical categories) working in Group-C posts to work as ministerial staff i.e., Junior Clerks on permanent basis as a change of cadre from one category to another at "NED" subject to certain conditions. It was further mentioned in the said notification that this is a rare opportunity extended as one time dispensation for change of category to all technical and non-technical categories (other than running staff) to opt for ministerial category on bottom seniority. He further mentioned that there is likelihood of better chances of promotion on NED Division in the ministerial cadre due to availability of vacancies. It was also mentioned that this factual position may be brought to the notice of the concerned duly giving wide publicity as no staff should feel that they have lost the opportunity because of unawareness of this letter. The General Manager further mentioned in the notification that options exercised before 30-6-2004 should be forwarded to the Divisional Head Quarters before 5-7-2004 and the Divisional Head Quarters should forward the same through SPO/Rules in a bunch by 12-7-2004. The said notification was marked to GS/SCRE Sangh/SC, GS/SCRM Union/SC, SC/ST Association/SC, All SPOs and APOs in Head Quarters for the purpose of information.
4. The petitioners made their applications within time by opting for ministerial cadre on bottom seniority and submitted them to the Divisional Security Commissioner and he forwarded those applications to the second respondent. The second respondent instead of forwarding those applications to the third respondent issued a proceeding dated 12-7-2004 mentioning as follows:
With reference to the above, it is to inform that the RPF staff are not permitted to opt for the post of Jr. Clerk vide reference cited above in the light of Boards letter No. E(NG)/I/2002/PM-2/9 dated 11-8-2003 and Lr. No. 2003/Sec(E)/PM-3/3 dated 16-2-2004 circulated vide this office letter of even No. dated 5-9-2003 and 27-2-2004 respectively.
In view of the above position, the applications of RPF staff forwarded by the divisions for the post of Junior Clerks in NED division are returned herewith. The staff may be informed accordingly.
This issues with the approval of CSC/SC
5. The copies of this proceeding were marked to the General Secretary, RPFA/SCR for information and ISPF/SIB, 'A'Coy/HQrs. and QM for information and necessary action.
6. The petitioners contended that they are being treated as "railway servants" for all practical purposes, in view of Section 10 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') and it reads as follows:
Section 10:
The Director General and every member of the force shall for all purposes be regarded as "railway servants" within the meaning of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890), other than Chapter VI-A thereof, and shall be entitled to exercise the powers conferred on railway servants by or under that Act.
7. The learned counsel submitted that except the disciplinary proceedings which is within the purview of the Director General, the petitioners are governed by Rule 80 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short 'the RPF Rules') for the purpose of Provident Fund, Gratuity, Pension, medical facility, passes etc. The learned counsel submitted that according to Rule 80 the servants of the Railway Protection Force shall be governed by the railway rules in the absence of specific provisions under the RPF Rules. Rule 80 of the RPF Rules reads as under:
80. Provident fund, gratuity, pension, medical facilities, passes etc.-
1) In matter relating to:
i) Provident fund,
ii) Gratuity,
iii) Pension,
iv) Medical facilities,
v) Passes and Privileges Ticket Orders,
vi) Educational assistance,
vii) Travelling and transfer allowances, and
viii) Other financial matters Superior officers and enrolled members of the Force shall be governed by the provisions of these rules or where no specific provision has been made in these rules then by the extant Railway Rules in the same manner as officers holding the corresponding ranks or grades in the railways are governed by the said Railway Rules:
Provided that the extant Railway Rules relating to the aforesaid matters may be modified by the Central Government from time to time in their application to the members of the Force.
2) A Provident Fund Account book shall be issued to each member of the Force in which deductions made by the Pay Drawing Authority shall be periodically entered and authenticated.
8. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to Section 2(34) of the Railways Act, 1989, which defines the words "railway servant" and contended that in view of the amendment to Section 2 (34) under the Railways Second Amendment Act, 2003, which came into force on 1-7-2004, members of the Railway Protection Force appointed under clause (c) of sub-section (l) of Section 2 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 are also coming under the definition of the "railway servants". The definition of "railway servant" after the amendment reads as follows:
Sec. 2 (34) "Railway servant" means any person employed by the Central Government or by a railway administration in connection with the service of a railway, including member of the Railway Protection Force appointed under clause (c) of sub-section (l) of Section 2 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the security department in which the petitioners are now working is treated as one of the departments of railways and the respondents are therefore provided the channel of promotion to the Security Personnel also. When the respondents in the similar cases refused to forward the applications of the Constables for the post of Assistant Station Master in the year 1995, the employees have filed W.P. No. 19521 of 1995 and an interim direction was given by this Court to forward the applications to the second respondent.
10. The learned counsel further submitted that the fourth respondent directed his subordinates to relieve the selected candidates in that connection for training by letter dated 14-8-1997. When the respondents denied the employees to undergo training, some of the employees filed W.P. No. 25872 of 1995 on the file of this Court and this Court granted interim direction in W.P.M.P. No. 31877 of 1995 dated 16-11-1995 and the petitioners therein were sent for training to the post of Assistant Station Masters. The learned counsel further submitted that the action of the second respondent in refusing to forward the applications of the petitioners to the posts of Junior Clerks on the basis of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 11-8-2003 and letter dated 24-3-2004 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the same may be declared as such.
11. The point for consideration is whether the petitioners who are working as RPF Constables can be treated as members of railway service for the purpose of making applications to the posts of Junior Clerks by virtue of an option given to all the graduates working in Group-C posts?
Point:
12. The third respondent issued a notification on 4-6-2004 mentioning that it is decided to extend the facility of option to all the graduates (technical/non-technical categories) working in Group-C posts (other than running staff) to work as ministerial staff i.e., Junior Clerk in scale Rs. 3050 - 4590 on permanent basis as a change of cadre from one category to the other subject to certain conditions. It was further mentioned in the said notification that this is a rare opportunity extended as one time dispensation for change of category to all Technical and Non-technical categories (other than running staff) to opt for ministerial cadre on bottom seniority. There is likelihood of better chances of promotion on NED division in the ministerial cadre due to availability of vacancies.
13. On 12-7-2004 the second respondent addressed a letter to the Deputy Chief Security Commissioners and Assistant Security Commissioners of various places informing that the RPF staff are not permitted to opt for the post of Junior Clerks vide CPO/SC letter No. P/CE/228/New Zones/Vol. I dated 10-6-2004 in the light of the Boards letter No. E(NG)/I/2002/PM-2/9 dated 11-8-2003 and letter No. 2003/Sec(E)/PM-3/3 dated 16-2-2004 circulated through the office letter dated 5-9-2003 and 27-2-2004 respectively. He further mentioned in the said letter that in view of the above position the applications of the RPF staff forwarded by the divisions for the post of Junior Clerks in NED division are returned and the staff members may be informed accordingly. The Railway Board through its letter No. E(NG)I/2002/PM2/9 dated 11-8-2003 clarified the position on the plea of RPF Constables who applied for Junior Clerks and the said clarification to the extent necessary for the purpose of this writ petition reads as follows:
The question whether the RPF/RPSF Personnel should be considered eligible to appear in the GDCE or other Departmental selections for appointment/promotion to posts in Departments other than RPF/RPSF in the Railways has been considered carefully by the Board in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs. As the Railways are aware, the scheme of GDCE has been introduced with the main objective of facilitating redeployment of surplus staff either by redeployment of such staff in the posts vacated by staff selected under GDCE or surplus eligible staff themselves getting selected under the scheme. However, the selection of RPF/RPSF staff under the GDCE cannot in any way facilitate redeployment of surplus staff. In view of this and on the analogy of practice being followed by the Central Police Forces (CPFs) under the control of the Ministry of Home Affairs as also the very nature of job and the method of recruitment in RPF/RPSF, it has been decided that the RPF/RPSF Personnel cannot be allowed to appear in the GDCE. They will also not be eligible to appear in other Departmental selections in Departments other than RPF/RPSF. However, the past cases decided otherwise will not be reopened.
14. Challenging the above letter dated 11-8-2003 some of the RPF Constables have filed an original application vide O.A. No. 2661 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi and the Tribunal in its order dated 30-12-2003 passed in the said application observed that RPF/RPSF cannot be said to be covered within the meaning of "other department staff". The Tribunal further held as follows:
7. ... We are inclined to agree with the contention of the respondents that the applicants are part of a combatised Force created specifically to look after the security needs of the Indian Railways and the mode of their selection and training has also been conducted in that direction only. Thus, creation of such posts appears to be totally unrelated to the ministerial needs. Admittedly, the applicants had joined the Force and underwent special training with the full knowledge and intent to remain as members of the combatised Force only and not to migrate to ministerial cadre. Undoubtedly, as admitted by the respondents as well, on certain earlier occasions some members of the RPF/RPSF staff had participated in the departmental examinations for the post of Junior Cashier, but we tend to agree with the arguments of the respondents that, that by itself does not confer any right on otherwise ineligible members of the Force to appear in the examination because the applicants have not been able to produce before us any rules to show that they are entitled as a matter of right to appear in the examination for the post of Junior Cashier.
15. Subsequent to the Circular dated 11-8-2003 of the Railway Board, the All India RPF Association made a representation to the Ministry of Railways to permit the personnel of RPF to appear for appointment or for selection or examinations of the other Departments of Railways and the same was rejected on 16-2-2004. A communication was sent to that effect to the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Secunderabad in response to his letter dated 23-12-2003, and the same reads as follows:
The demand of All India RPF Association for allowing RPF personnel to appear in the GDE of the railway has been considered in consultation with the establishment, directorate of Ministry of Railways. It is however regretted that the demand of All India RPF Association cannot be agreed to.
16. In V. Damodar Rao and another v. The Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad & others in W.P. No. 29414 of 1998 a learned single Judge of this Court held as follows:
The petitioner's contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the RPF Department is not included in Chapter I of the Railway Establishment service rules under sub-section III which provides for recruitment and training for 14 departments. The departments included in the said Chapter are: 1) Transportation (Traffic) Department, 2) Commercial Department, 3) Transportation (Power) Department, 4) Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Department, 5) Civil Engineering Department, 6) Signal and Telecommunication Department, 7) Drawing Office Cadre, 8) Stores Department, 9) Skilled Artisans, 10) Medical Department (Para Medical Staff), 11) Scientific Staff, 12) Ministerial and Non-Ministerial Categories, 13) Official Language Department and 14) Railway School Staff. The categories under the expression "Other Departments" mentioned under Rule 170 (1)(99)(c) relates to those categories only which are mentioned under Sub-Section 111 (XII) which is as under:
XII. Ministerial and Non-Ministerial Categories:
a) Accounts Department:
xxx
b) Other than Accounts Department:
i) Office Clerks, ii) Typists, iii) Stenographers.
It is therefore clear that the Railway Protection Force Department is not included in the Departments narrated above and also the category of Constables is not mentioned under Sub-Section 111 (XII)(b). Therefore, the petitioners are not eligible for consideration to the post of Cashiers. The writ petition has no merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
17. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the policy decisions of the Railway Board cannot be interfered with by this Court and it is for the State to decide whether any Department is to be included for the purpose of extending a particular benefit. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that permitting the employees of various departments of South Central Railway and denying similar opportunity to the personnel of Railway Protection Force amounts to discrimination and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
18. In this regard it may be appropriate to refer to certain decisions of the Supreme Court. In Vijay Lakshmi v. Punjab University, while dealing with the question as regards to the reservation of posts in women's college/hostel for women only the Supreme Court observed as follows:
In the light of the established propositions of law interpreting Articles 14 to 16 it can be stated that there could be classification between male and female for certain posts. Such classification cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjustified. In cases where the policy decision is taken by the State beyond rules are framed accordingly, it cannot be termed to be arbitrary or unjustified. Hence it is not possible to hold that the rules empowering the authority to appoint only a lady Principal or a lady teacher or a lady doctor or a woman Superintendent are violative of Article 14 or 16.
It is not for the Court to sit in appeal against the policy decision taken by the State Government. It is for the State to decide whether such a rule is preventive one or precautionary measure.
19. In Western U.P. Electric Power & Supply Co. Ltd., v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court held as follows:
Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality among equals: its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment. It does not however operate against rational classification. A person setting up a grievance of denial of equal treatment by law must establish that between persons similar circumstances, some were treated to their prejudice and the differential treatment had no reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law.
20. In Chief Security Commr., SCR, RPF, Rail Nilayam, Sec'bad v. H. Srinivasa Rao, (DB) while answering the challenge made by the petitioners to a policy decision taken by the Railways as regards the merger of fire-service branch in the executive branch consequent on the closure of fire-service branch a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
The Court, normally, is not inclined to interfere with such policy decisions unless the same is found to be patently arbitrary or illegal. If the persons affected can show that there had been a flagrant violation of the policy decision itself, and then only the same can be subject matter of judicial review. A policy decision which is in the exclusive domain of the State can be struck down only when the same is ultra vires or unconstitutional. Bereft of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, no policy decision can be done away with.
21. In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Shri Hari Shankar Vaidhya, 1997 (4) Supreme 352 while dealing with the claim made by certain teachers working in Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathic aided institutions for pension and gratuity on par with State Government Civil Servants, the Supreme Court held that whether the scheme could be extended or not was a question of executive policy and the Court would not take responsibility of directing the Government to extend the policy. The Court requires examination as to how the policy laid down is being worked-out. Since it is stated that the extending of the above benefits to the teachers mentioned above involve huge financial outlay, the Supreme Court directed the Government to consider extension of the benefit of pension and gratuity scheme to the teachers working in the Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathic aided educational institutions in a phased manner, as was done with respect to the other aided institutions.
22. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the definition of the word "railway servant" as amended in the Railway Protection Force (Amended) Act 2003, which came into force with effect from 1-7-2004, the member of Railway Protection Force is also included, therefore, the petitioners shall be treated as "railway servants" and a direction may be given to the respondents that they are entitled to make application for the Junior Clerk posts notified by the Chief Personnel Officer.
23. The Railway Protection Force (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Act 51 of 2003) was brought into existence with the following object:
The railway administration has at its disposal seventy thousand personnel of the Railway Protection Force, which is an armed force of the Union. The Railway Protection Force has been given limited powers under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 to take action against any person who is found in unlawful possession of railway property. However, the Railway Protection Force is not able to actively help the railway administration in dealing with day-to-day problems and to ensure smooth running of trains. Though the Railways Act, 1989 empowers the railway servants, including a Member of the Railway Protection Force, to arrest without warrant the persons committing offences mentioned in Section 179 of the said Act and to produce them before the nearest Magistrate, such persons are not empowered to either investigate or inquire into cases or launch prosecution in a court of law. These functions are performed by the State police.
For effectively dealing with certain offences under the Railways Act, 1989, it is proposed that the officers authorized by the Central Government may be empowered to enquire and launch prosecution against the persons committing offences directly related to the functioning of the railways by amending the said Act. It is also proposed to empower these officers to search and seize any property and to file complaint in a Court of competent jurisdiction in respect of these offences. The authorized officers would not have the power in respect of certain serious offences viz., offences under Sections 150 to 152 of the Railways Act, 1989.
24. Act 51 of 2003 was brought into force for a specific purpose of empowering the officers of the Railway Protection Force to search and seize any property and to file complaint in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, the inclusion of Railway Protection Force in the definition of "railway servant" is for the above purpose and not for any other purpose. If no such clarification is given by the Railway Board in its object, then there would have been a scope for interpreting the definition of "railway servant" and treating the members of the Railway Protection Force as railway servants for all purposes and as members of one of the departments under the direct control of the Railway Board, including the one of making applications for ministerial posts.
25. In the light of the policy decision of the Railway Board that the members of the Railway Protection Force cannot be treated as one of the Departments of the Railway Board, the judgments of the Supreme Courts referred supra and in the light of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2661 of 2003, the petitioners being the members of the Railway Protection Force are being treated as a different class and they do not form the same class under which the members of other departments of the Railway Board were brought and treating them in a different standard does not amount to violation of the equal right provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There are no grounds to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and to issue any direction by way of a writ of Mandamus against the respondents.
26. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.