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
(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.

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.