1. Dispute regarding recognition of a service association formed based on job description under Rule 5(c) of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 478
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Government of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
ISRO Drivers Association – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(S). 7138 of 2010
Decided On : 10-08-2020
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Formation of association on the basis of job description is not permissible.
(2) Words and particular general words, cannot be read in isolation, their colour and their content are derived from their context.
(1) Formation of association on the basis of job description is not permissible.
(2) Words and particular general words, cannot be read in isolation, their colour and their content are derived from their context.
Subject
Administrative Law - Recognition of Service Associations
Act Referred
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES RECOGNITION OF SERVICE ASSOCIATIONS RULES: R.5(c), R.10
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.148, Art.309
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.148, Art.309
Headnote
(A) Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 – Rule 5 (c) – Formation of association on the basis of job description – Primary object of forming service association is to promote common service interest of its members and membership of service association remain restricted to such Government servants having common interest and all group of employees covered under existing JCM scheme were categorized as a distinct category for forming their association – At the same time, if association/Union is being exclusively permitted to be formed by group of employees based on job description in organization such as drivers, stenographers, etc. apart from various category of employees who are working in SDSC SHAR i.e. technical attendants, nursing attendants, technicians, office attendants, radiographers, etc. for the purpose of recognition under scheme of Rules 1993 treating them to be a ‘distinct category’ as considered by Division Bench in impugned judgment, there is a greater probability that employees of each of such trades/jobs would form into association in each of centres/units qualifying themselves into ‘distinct category’ and seek representation in JCM that would not only defeat purpose of JCM but would lead to groupism obstructing working atmosphere and neither joint consultation nor consensus would prevail and that will jeopardize service interest of government servants – Presently, strength of staff working in various groups is over 16,000 – In given situation, if any group of employees based on their job description is permitted to form an association under guise of ‘distinct category, it will indeed have an adverse consequential effect which would never be intention of rule making authority while framing scheme of Rules 1993 – Respondent confining itself to drivers as members cannot command 15% of total number of employees covered by scheme in SDSC SHAR as sanctioned strength of drivers is less than 15% of members under scheme, as a distinct category considering Group of employees (A,B,C & D) respectively – Impugned judgment passed by Division Bench of High Court set aside. (Paras 29, 30 and 33)
(B) Maxim – Latin maxim ‘noscitur a socilis’ states this contextual principle, whereby a word or phrase is not to be construed as if it stood alone but in light of its surroundings – Words and particular general words, cannot be read in isolation, their colour and their content are derived from their context. (Para 31)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 22nd September, 2008 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad holding the association formed by the drivers based on job description as a ‘distinct category’ laid down under Rule 5 (c) of Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 overruling the view expressed by the Single Bench of the High Court dated 9th October, 2001. The question that emerges is whether “the association formed on the basis of job description such as drivers etc. which has been classified in group ‘C’ constitute a ‘distinct category of Government servants’ under Rule 5 (c) of Rules 1993”.
Findings of Court:
Presently the strength of the staff working in various groups is over 16,000. In the given situation, if any group of employees based on their job description is permitted to form an association under the guise of ‘distinct category’ as prayed, it will indeed have an adverse consequential effect which would never be the intention of the rule making authority while framing the scheme of Rules 1993. Our view is being strengthened noticing Rule 5 (d) which lays down that subsequent association with less than 35% of total number of categories can be recognized if it commands at least 15% of the membership. The respondent confining itself to drivers as members cannot command 15% of the total number of employees covered by the scheme in SDSC SHAR as the sanctioned strength of the drivers (around 160) is less than 15%
of the members under the scheme, as a distinct category considering the Group of employees (A,B,C & D) respectively.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Shekhar G. Devasa, Manish Tiwari, Luv Kumar, For M/S. Devasa & Co., Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Shekhar G. Devasa, Manish Tiwari, Luv Kumar, For M/S. Devasa & Co., Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Whether an association based on job description constitutes a distinct category under Rule 5(c) and if administrative clarifications can supplement statutory rules. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Analysis of the object of the Rules to avoid plurality of associations and the validity of administrative clarifications in supplementing the statutory scheme. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. The term distinct category must be interpreted contextually to prevent fragmentation and groupism, ensuring the primary object of promoting common service interest is maintained. (Para 32 )
5. Appeal allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside. (Para 33 , 34 )
6. What constitutes a distinct category under Rule 5(c) of the Rules 1993?
A distinct category refers to an association whose members have a commonality of interest and function as a homogenous group. The responsibility for defining this category is entrusted to the concerned Ministry or Department, considering the functional, administrative, and organizational setup. (Para 19 , 20 , 32 )
7. Can administrative clarifications supplement statutory rules framed under the Constitution?
Yes, administrative circulars can be issued to supplement rules and fill unoccupied gaps to promote harmonious relations and secure cooperation between the Government and its employees, provided they do not supplant the rules. (Para 6 , 32 )
8. Why is an association based solely on job description generally not recognized as a distinct category?
Permitting associations based on job description would lead to excessive plurality and groupism, which would obstruct the working atmosphere and defeat the purpose of the Joint Consultative Machinery to promote common service interests. (Para 29 , 30 , 32 )
9. How should the term distinct category be interpreted legally?
It should be interpreted using the principle of noscitur a sociis, meaning the phrase must be construed in light of its surroundings and the overall object of the statutory scheme rather than in isolation. (Para 31 , 32 )
JUDGMENT :
Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 22nd September, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad holding the association formed by the drivers based on job description as a ‘distinct category’ laid down under Rule 5 (c) of Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter being referred to as “Rules 1993”) overruling the view expressed by the Single Bench of the High Court dated 9th October, 2001.
2. The seminal facts in brief which are relevant for the present purpose are that the respondent approached the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking a declaration in treating their association comprising of drivers operating in appellant no. 4-Shar Centre a Unit of ISRO, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh eligible to participate in the verification process by according recognition and rejection of their application by order dated 29th June, 1999 on the premise that association formed by a group of employees based on job description will not qualify for recognition under Rules 1993 is in contravention to Rule 5 (c) which is not sustainable in law.
3. Learned Single Judge of the High Court taking note of the scheme of Rules 1993 and R5(c) & R10 in particular with later Office Memorandum dated 22nd April, 1994 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pension read with decision of the Department of Space dated 30th May, 1996 arrived at the conclusion that the object of the scheme is to protect the common interest of the employees of the establishment and the respondent represents only the interests of drivers but the association must have a collective voice of all the groups for the purpose of recognition and after the expression ‘distinct category’ as referred to under R5(c) being explicitly clarified by the Department of Personnel and Training(DOPT) and Department of Space, any association formed on the basis of job description or trade will not qualify to accord recognition and later communication dated 22nd April, 1994 is supplementing the scheme of Rules 1993 for its proper implementation in fulfilment of the object with which the scheme has been framed and there appears no apparent error in the decision of the authority rejecting their claim seeking recognition in forming the association representing interest of the drivers based on job description not being covered under the scheme of Rules 1993 dismissed the writ petition by its judgment and order dated 9th October, 2001 which came to be challenged by the respondent in writ appeal.
4. While revisiting the indisputed facts on record, the Division Bench was of the view that the term ‘distinct category’ defined under Rule 5 (c) is not open to be clarified by the DOPT and with its literal interpretation held the association of drivers as a ‘distinct category’ and accordingly directed the appellants to examine whether the respondent satisfy other preconditions of the scheme and, thereafter, take a decision subjected to the verification process for being accorded recognition under the Rules 1993. The appellants being aggrieved by the order and judgment of the Division Bench impugned dated 22nd September, 2008 came up in appeal before us.
5. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the expression ‘distinct category’ as referred to under Rule 5 (c) of the Rules 1993 has not been defined and that was the reason the rule making authority visited the scheme and by its clarificatory memo dated 22nd April, 1994, had entrusted this responsibility to concerned Ministry/Department to take a decision keeping in view the functional, administrative and organizational set up. In furtherance thereof, the Department of Space held its meeting in April 1994 with all the service associations and except the respondent, other associations agreed that all the employees covered by the Joint Consultative Machinery scheme of the Dep
