Indian Railway Sas Staff Association vs Union Of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1998 Supreme(SC) 94

1998(1) Supreme 287
Supreme Court of India
(From CAT, New Delhi)
Sujata V. Manohar & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Indian Railway SAS Staff Association & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4647 of 1992
Decided on 21-1-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mr. S.K. Mehta, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. Fazlin Anam and Ms. Shobha Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mrs. K. Amreshwari, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A.K. Sharma and Ms. Anjani Ayyengar, Advocates.

Headnote:Service Law - Subordinate Account Service Staff working in Railways-On basis of recommendation of Fourth Pay Commission revised pay scale of Rs 2,000-3200 given to appellants-Commission however did not recommend that posts in pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3200 in Railways be treated as group B posts-Appellants’ claim that they should also be accorded parity in group classification with their counterparts in CAG and CGDA organisations - Whether there was any violation of fundamental rights of Accounts employees of the Railways in not according group ‘B’ status though they were placed in revised scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- their counterparts in CAG and CGDA?-(No)-Scale of pay alone cannot be the criteria for classification of posts.
       Held that the Tribunal has taken a correct view of the matter. As noted above, the Fourth Central Pay Commission had recommended that the existing system of classification of posts in various departments of the Central Government may be continued and had indicated the corresponding pay limits in the revised pay structure. The Commission had also recommended that the Government might, however, review the classification in such cases as and when necessary. The Railways reviewed the whole position and taking into consideration various aspects of the matter decided that the existing system of classification as in vogue in the Railways to continue. (Para 12)
       Classification of posts into gazetted or non-gazetted cannot be done purely on the basis of scales of pay. There can be many criteria; administrative, procedural and others which have to be taken into consideration by the authorities concerned before deciding on the classification. Admittedly, Railways have a number of posts of different operative categories in department such as Operating, Mechanical, Civil, Electrical, S & T etc. where field operators may have scales of pay of Rs. 2000-3200/- or Rs. 2375-3500/- which have been classified as Group ‘C’ only. As such it cannot be said that there is any discrimination against the Account staff in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200/-. (Para 13)
       The simplistic solution to classification merely based on the scales of pay might lead into various complications and might lead to administrative hierarchial imbalances in any particular organisation. Selection procedure for appointment to a particular group post and requirements of a department for classification of posts are valid considerations and any disturbance thereof would certainly lead to compounding of problems. We, therefore, cannot subscribe to the view that the scale of pay alone can be the criteria for classification of posts. Respondents have given valid and justifiable reasons as to why the Account staff in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- cannot be put at par with their counterparts in CAG or CGDA in respect of putting the Account staff in Group ‘B’ posts merely on the basis of parity of pay scales. (Para 15)

Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-The appellants are aggrieved by that part of the order dated April 26, 1991 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal did not accept their contention that they being in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 be also granted the Group B status like their counterparts in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) and the Controller General of Defence Accounts. (CGDA).

2. The appellants had also raised another issue before the Tribunal that they should also be granted revised pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and not from 1.4.1987 as was granted by the respondents. The Tribunal directed the respondents to fix the appellants in the revised scales of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1986 on notional basis and make actual payment of the differential amount consequent to re-fixation of pay in the revised scales w.e.f. 1.4.1987. Against this part of the relief granted to the appellants by the Tribunal, Union of India came in appeal in this Court and by judgment dated July 15, 1994 (1995 Supp. 3 SCC 600) the Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and held that the appellants would be entitled to revised pay scales only with effect from 1.4.1987. It is therefore not necessary for us to go into this controversy which stands settled.

3. The first appellant is an Association of Subordinate Account Service (SAS) Staff working in the Railways. Other appellants are serving in the Railways as Section Officers or Travelling Inspectors of Accounts. The appellants contend that in various Ministries and Departments of the Central Government, notably Railways, Defence, Posts and Telegraphs, CAG, CGDA etc., there is an Accounts establishment called SAS. They, therefore, contend that SAS Railways have always been equated and granted parity with SAS (CAG) in the matter selection grades, pay scales, status etc. and that any deviation from the traditional parity with the SAS Railways and SAS (CAG) and SAS (CGDA) etc. would be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The main grievance of the appellants, therefore, is that while they have been placed in the pay scales of Rs. 2000-3200, they have not been granted Group ‘B’ status as has been done in respect of their counterparts in CAG and CGDA in the same pay scale.

4. The genesis of the dispute it would appear relates back to the report of the Fourth Central Pay Commission (‘Commission’ for short). The Commission noted that there were about 65,000 posts of accounts staff in Groups B and C working in different departments/offices of the Government of India and that the posts were in different pay scales and designations. It noted that there were organised accounts cadres under CGDA, CAG, Railways and Departments of Posts and Telecommunications. The Commission considered the existing pay-scale of the accounts posts in the organised cadres and it then looked into the representations of the associations of the accounts staff. The report of the Commission relating to accounts staff, in relevant part, is as under :

“11.36. The main demand of the associations of accounts staff under CGDA, CAG, Railways and Departments of Posts and Telecommunications is that their pay scales should be the same as for the staff in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (IA & AD). They have pointed out that there was parity all along, which was disturbed in March, 1984 when there was a restructuring of IA & AD into two separate cadres, i.e. audit cadre and accounts and establishment cadre. As a result, higher pay scales were given to 80 per cent of the staff on the audit side. They have also claimed that the duties and responsibilities performed by them and the staff on the audit side of IA & AD are comparable. The All India Defence Accounts Association had also filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court requesting the Hon’ble Court to direct the government for bringing the pay scales of auditors and Section office

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 94

Cases Referred (3)