Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The broad contents of the memorandum may be noted. It brought about some changes in the recruitment of Traffic/Commercial Apprentices - one of the changes being that on and from 15.5.1987 the recruitment of these Apprentices would be made in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 (this scale earlier was Rs. 1400-2300) and, instead of ail the posts being filled up by promotions, ratio of promotees was made 75%, and of the remaining 25%, 10% were required to come through Railway Recruitment Boards and 5% on the basis of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. The pre-1987 Apprentices laid their claim for the higher scale of pay on the basis of 1987 memorandum: and it is this claim which has come to be allowed by the majority of the CATS.

4. The appellant has challenged the legality of this view. It has also been contended that the memorandum is not invalid for the reason given by the Ernakulam Bench or, for that matter, any other reason. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the view taken by the majority of the CATs insofar as the benefit of higher pay scale is concerned. According to them the memorandum lis also invalid because of its discriminatory nature and introduction of arbitrary cut-off date.5. To decide the controversy, it would be apposite to apprise ourselves as to what was the procedure of recruitment before the memorandum in question; and what was really meant by the word 'Apprentices'. We have put this aspect at the forefront because the Tribunals, who have granted the benefit of higher pay scale, have done so, with respect, without applying their mind to the relevant provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, hereinafter the Manual, dealing with the recruitment of (1) Traffic Apprentices; and (2) Commercial Apprentices. Rule 123 of 1968 Edition of the Manual deals with recruitment of Traffic Apprentices and Rule 127 with Commercial Apprentices. It is apparent from this Manual that the posts to be held by Traffic Apprentices before the 1987 were of : (1) Assistant Station Masters; (2) Assistant Yard Masters; (3) Traffic Inspectors; and (4) Section Controller (in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600). Insofar as Commercial Apprentices are concerned, these posts were of: (1) Assistant Claims Inspectors/Supervisors; (2) Assistant Commercial Inspectors; (3) Assistant Rates Inspectors (Goods and Coaching); and (4) Other Inspectors for outdoor duties. This apart, the pre-1987 position was that in the Traffic and Commercial Departments posts in pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 were being filled up to the extent of 25% by direct recruits, of which 15% were from open market and 10% from Limited Departmental Competitive Examination; and the balance 75% by promotion from lower grade. Further, the term 'Apprentices' was being actually used to cover 'direct recruits', as distinct from 'promotees'. Another thing to be noted. which again missed the Tribunals in question is that when the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 was being paid to Traffic/Commercial Apprentices, the higher pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 was being paid to those who were in a higher grade.6. Though the above is disputed by Mrs. Sharda Devi, appearing for some of the respondents, we entertain no doubt on this score, because from what has been stated in para 6 of the Affidavit filed by T. P. V. S. Sekar Rao, Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway Headquarters Office, Secunderabad. it appears that the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 was being made available to Traffic Inspector Grade III, whereas scale of Rs. 1600-2660 was meant for Traffic Inspectors Grade II. Similarly, Commercial Inspectors, Grade III, was getting the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and Commercial Inspector, Grade II, the scale of Rs. 1600-2660. Mrs. Sharda Devi has referred to us in this connection to the Table of "Avenue of Promotion for SS/Tls." finding place at page 82 of this counter, to bring home her point. This chart itself shows that there are prorhotional posts and the old scale of Rs. 455-700 (which on revision became Rs. 1400-2300) was meant for some Traffic Apprentices and not all. We may refer in this context to what finds place in Section B of Chapter II of the Manual. This Section deals with Rules governing the promotion of Group 'C' and shows that some promotional posts have been categorised as selection posts and some non-selection. The aforesaid chart relating to the 'avenue of promotion' has itself mentioned which are the non-selection posts and which are selection posts.

, does not mean that these Section Controllers were given the pay Scale of Rs. 1600-2660, as urged by the learned counsel. All that was conveyed by this statement was that the Section Controllers, even though getting the revised scale of Rs. 1400-2600, their starting pay would be Rs. 1600. This was so required, according to Shri Malhotra appearing for the appellant, because the Trained Apprentices could become eligible for the post of Section Controller only after having two years Yard's experience in the grade of Rs. 455-700. It is this pay scale which had become on revision Rs. 1400-2300; the unrevised pay scale of Section Controller was Rs. 470-750, which on revision became Rs. 1400 2600 ". So, what has been stated in para 2(ii) does not support the case of the respondents that the memorandum of 1987 really dealt with the revision of pay of all the Traffic/Commercial Apprentices.8. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunals which allowed the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 to all the Traffic/Commercial Apprentices irrespective of the grade of the posts held by them, not only misunderstood the.memorandum of 1987, but misconceived the provisions relati ng to the recruitment and promotion of these Apprentices as finding place in the Establishment Manual. Indeed, somehow or other they were oblivious of what has found place in the manual in this regards.

"

Normally recruitment will be to the lowest grade of the lowest class but direct recruitment on limited scale to intermediate grades will be made in accordance with instructions laid down by the Railway Board from time to time".

ultimately failed to bear in mind the aforesaid provision. Rule 1-A which had come to be made pursuant to the power conferred by the the proviso to Article 309 and having stated that the recruitment in the lowest grade will, be made in accordance with the instructions laid down by the Railway Board from time to time, the rule itself permitted the Railway Board to issue necessary instructions, and the memorandum of 1987 having been issued by the Railway Board in exercise of this power, we hold that Board had valid authority to issue the memorandum.10. Another submission made by Mrs. Sharda Devi in assailing the validity of memorandum was that though pre - 15-5-1987 Apprentices would get the scale of Rs. 1400-2300, the post 15-5-1987 Apprentices were made available the scale of Rs. 1600-2660, for no good reason, and so, the memorandum was arbitrary. This is more so as earlier the apprentices were to undergo training for 3 years, which was reduced to 2 years by the memorandum. Shri Malhotra's contention in this connection was that there was a change, of policy in the sense that Apprentices recruited after 15-5-1987 were to man the posts, not of Assistant Station Masters, Assistant Yard Masters etc. as before, but of Station Masters, and Yard Masters. It is because of this that higher pay scale was made available to them. It was also brought to our notice that the memorandum provided that the standard of examination for the Apprentices to be recruited after 15-5-1987 was required to be higher than that which,was prevailing, and if because of this, the period of training was made 2 years in place of 3, the same cannot make the policy unreasonable, as a two-year period for training is of sufficiently long duration to equip persons selected after a more rigorous test, with the knowledge required to man the posts in question. We agreed and state that if direct recruits passing examination of higher standard to man higher posts were required to be given higher pay scales, the same cannot be regarded in any way as discriminatory or even arbitrary. Such a policy decision is not unreasonable also.