Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

6. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the controversy raised, this Court rightly passed the order, issuing the directions in paragraph 18 of M. Bhakar's case (supra) for the purpose of bringing about uniformity amongst all the employees similarly placed, that is, those who were recruited as Traffic Apprentices prior to 15-5-1987. The further submission of the learned Addl. Solicitor General was that this Court taking note of the hardship which may be caused to the appellants and other similarly placed employees issued the further direction that no recovery shall be made of the amount which they might have received in the higher scale of pay. In the submission of the learned Addl. Solicitor General, the directions in paragraph 18 of the judgment were issued with a view to do complete justice between all pre-1987 Traffic Apprentices and therefore calls for no interference.

23. In the case on hand the controversy relates to the scale of pay admissible for Traffic Apprentices in the Railways appointed prior to the cut-off date. The controversy in its very nature is one which applies to all such employees of the Railways; it is not a controversy which is confined to some individual employees or a section of the employees. If the judgment of the tribunal which had taken a view contrary to the ratio laid down by judgment of this Court in M. Bhaskar's case (supra) was allowed to stand then the resultant position would have been that some Traffic Apprentices who were parties in those cases would have gained an unfair and undeserved advantage over other employees who are or were holding the same post. Such enviable position would not only have been per se discriminatory but could have resulted in a situation which is undesirable for a cadre of large number of employees in a big establishment like that of the Indian Railways. To avoid such a situation this Court made the observations in paragraph 17 of the judgment. At the cost of repetition we may reiterate that since the main plank of argument of the appellants was that since they were not parties in the case they had no opportunity to place their case before this Court made the observations in paragraph 17 of the judgment as aforementioned we specifically asked learned counsel appearing for the parties to place the argument in support of their challenge to the observations made by this Court on merits. No point of substance assailing the observations on merits could be placed by them. The only contention made in that regard was some of the employees who were given benefit in the judgments of the CAT have got further promotions and they may lose the benefit of such promotion in case the observations made in paragraph 17 of the judgment are allowed to stand as it is. We are not impressed by the contention raised. If some employees were unjustly and improperly granted a higher scale of pay and on that basis were given promotion to a higher post then the basis of such promotion been on a non-existent; the superstructure built on such foundation should not be allowed to stand; This is absolutely necessary for the sake of maintaining equality and fair play with the other similarly placed employees. However, in our considered view, it will be just and fair to clarify that any amount drawn by such employees either in the basic post (Traffic Apprentice) or in a promotional post will not be required to be refunded by the employee concerned as a consequence of this judgment. This position also follows as a necessary corolary from the observations made by this Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment in M.Bhaskar's case (supra).

24. On the discussions made and the reasons set forth in the preceeding paragraphs the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order for costs. "

9. The applicants in the present proceedings have challenged the order dated 2.12.1996 (Ann.A/1) so far as cancellation of promotion of the applicants is concerned and direction is sought for restraining the respondents from reverting the applicant from the post of Station Superintendent. Perusal of this letter reveals that as per order of CAT-Jaipur Bench dated 2.6.1992 passed in OA No.602/1990 the Traffic Apprentices were given proforma promotion in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 and arrears were also given from the date they were originally absorbed in the category of Station Master scale Rs. 1400-2300. On the basis of the above order, the applicants have been given consequential benefits of seniority in the scale of Rs. 1600- 2660 from the date of their original absorption and given further proforma promotion in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 on the basis of proforma seniority of the scale of Rs. 1600- 2660. The respondents filed SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the order dated 2.6.1992 of the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal, which was decided in favour of the respondents and accordingly, the respondents have decided to reckon the seniority of the Traffic Apprentices based on their joining in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and their further promotions in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 and Rs. 2000- 3200 were regulated accordingly and not on the basis of proforma promotion given to them in the scale of Rs. 1600- 2660. Resultantly, the seniority given to them based on the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 and further proforma seniority and promotion required to be cancelled and revised seniority on the basis of absorption in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 was required to be worked out. It is admitted fact that the applicants were given the scale of Rs. 1600-2660, proforma seniority and promotions in the higher grade on the basis of the order dated 2.6.1992. After the judgment in the SLP filed by the respondents before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the benefit given to the applicants was required to be withdrawn and the applicants were required be given the benefit of seniority and promotion based on their original pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 as they were having no right for the benefits of the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 after the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, taking into consideration the hardship likely to be faced by the applicants, the respondents have decided not to recover the arrears paid to the applicants in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660.