tition Criminal Nos277 80 of 1989
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
RB Mehrotra for the Petitioners
UN Bachhawat Uma Nath Singh and NN Johri for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section RATNAVEL PANDIAN J
Two important questions arising for consideration in the above matter are 1Whether the petitioners 1 and 2 have been illegally detained from 2151989 to 181989 without any order of remand
2 Whether the petitioners 1 to 3 on being arrested were subjected to torture and treated in a degrading and inhuman manner by handcuffing and parading them through the public thorough fare during transit to the Court in utter disregard to 874 the judicial mandates declared in a number of decisions of this Court and whether they are entitled for compensation
The salient and material facts as set out in the Writ Petitions are as follows The petitioners are social workers and Members of Kisan Adivasi Sangathan  Kerala
The said Sangathan  is actively working against all kinds of exploitation purported against the local farmers and tribal people in the district of Hoshangabad
In villages of Morpani and Madikhoh of Hoshan gabad District there was only one school teacher employed in the Morpani school
The teacher was not attending the school for the last one and half years
Inspite of several com plaints lodged against the teacher the authorities did not pay any attention in this regard
Therefore on 272871988 the petitioners 1 to 3 along with a large number of tribal women and children staged a peaceful dharna  in front of the office of Block Education Officer Kesala demanding appointment of two regular teachers in the schools located in tribal hamlets
The Assistant District Inspector of Schools gave an assurance in writing stating that he would make enquiries and initiate action in this regard
But to the petitioners  dismay the local police initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners 1 to 3 and one old Adivasi widow aged about 65 years who was not paid her wages by the said teacher for an offence punishable under Section 186 IPC on the allegations that the petitioners and the Adivasi woman have obstructed public servants in discharge of their public functions
In connection with the said criminal proceeding the petitioners were arrested abused beaten and taken to the Court of 1st Class Judicial Magis trate Hoshangabad by handcuffing them
It seems that the petitioners when questioned refused to tender apology or repent for their conduct but tried to justify their action of having staged the dharna for a legitimate cause
The Magistrate convicted the petitioners 1 to 3 and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month while acquitting the woman
It is stated that even after the pronouncement of the judgment the police once again abused them made obscene gestures beat and took them to the penitentiary handcuffed
The fourth petitioner was arrested in connection with the peaceful dharna on 25111987 before the office of the Block Education Officer Kesala and put behind the bars
A warrant was said to have been issued against the second petitioner directing him to appear before the Magistrate on 85 1989 in connection with some other false case
According to the petitioner they all were working for the welfare of the weaker sections and down trodden people in 875 a peaceful manner but they were inhumanly treated against all norms of decency by the police in utter disregard of the repeated and consistent mandates of this Court and in utter violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India
There after the petitioners filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos282 1 24 of 1989 in the above writ petitions for im pleading the Superintendent District Jail and the 1st class Magistrate Hoshangabad as additional respondents and to treat the additional facts as part of the main writ petitions
The additional facts are as follows The petitioners 1 and 2 namely Sunil Gupta and Raj Narain though have served their one month imprisonment from 2241989 to 2151989 they were not released from the jail but continued to be detained on the allegation that they were wanted in two more cases namely in Case No 470 of 1988 registered under Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC pending in the Court of 1st Class Magistrate Hoshangabad and another in a case registered as Criminal Case No 56988 against the two petitioners and others under Section 353 148 and 149 IPC
The Court proceedings disclosed that the Magistrate issued bailable warrants as against the petition ers 1 and 2 and continued the same by issuing repeated orders of bailable warrants in a very mechanical and casual manner and without application of mind from 2651988 to 1721989
Even after the two petitioners have been sent to jail in pursuance of their conviction for the offence under Section 186 IPC a number of incorrect nothings were made in the records of the courts as if both the petitioners were pro duced from jail
Even after the expiry of the sentence the Magistrate had not cared to proceed with the case and to know as to why petitioners 1 and 2 were languishing in jail
In connection with the second case petitioner No 3 Puru shottam Nayak was also remanded but later on released on bail on 2641989
The Counter affidavit is filed by one RK Shivhare the then SHO Police Itarsi Hoshangabad District on behalf of the respondents giving a detailed version about the incident leading to the registration of various cases and justifying the conduct of the police officials in handcuffing the petitioners
Alongwith this affidavit he has filed Annex ures I to VI
He justifies the action of the police stating that the petitioners on pronouncement of their conviction got agitated turned violent and shouted slogans inside the Court which necessitated the escort police to handcuff the petitioners
He cites Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation para No 4651 as per which if the escort in charge 876 feels the necessity of handcuffing persons he is empowered to do so
However he denies allegations of torture obscene gestures etc
A copy of the police report dated nil and without dis closing the author of the same is filed stating that while first and second petitioners were taken to the prison on their conviction they turned violent not only inside the Court but also outside the Court and they were taken to the orison with the help of other members of the police force
The Deputy Superintendent of Police Headquarters Hoshanga bad has filed a separate counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition
A rejoinder is filed by the first petitioner reiterating his earlier stand and annexing certain newspaper clippings and some other docu ments inclusive of the copy of the judgment of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge Hoshangabad made in Criminal Appeal No 59 of 1989 setting aside the conviction of the petitioners recorded by the Judicial Magistrate for the offences under Section 186 IPC and acquitting the petition ers of the said offence
Head Constable No 66 who was incharge of the escort party has sworn to an affidavit stating that the petitioners 1 and 2 were taken to the jail on being handed over by the Court after their conviction and they took them to the prison by handcuffing them under a bona fide belief that the situation might become worse
He also cites paragraph 4651 of the MP Police Regulation in support of his action of putting the petitioners 1 to 3 under shackles
One other supporting affidavit is also filed by a constable of the escort party
It seems that a Sub Inspector of CID made an enquiry on a petition regarding the handcuffing of petitioners 1 and 2 and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police
The relevant portion of the report reads as follows   And the Court called the police guard and as per Court s direction the three accused were handcuffed and kept in the lock up later on the Court again called all the three accused persons to the Court where Purushottam Nayak was released on bail     
It was found on enquiry that the appellants Sunil and Rajnarayan were sentenced to one month imprisonment each under Section 186 IPC in the Court of Shri Chand Soria and police guards under the order of the honourable court handcuffed the appellants in the court itself and lodged them in jail
The appellants say that they should not have been handcuffed but the guards had no other instruction to the contrary in this regard
 877 From the writ petition counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavit we are able to gather certain facts they being 1A case in Crime No 8087 under Sections 147 341 was registered against the petitioners along with some others on 1112A case in Crime No 8687 under Section 353 323 332 read with Sec34 IPC was registered against the petitioners on 251187 by Kesala police
A case in Crime No 8787 under Section 34 1 read with Sec34 was registered against the petitioners on 25111987 itself
This case was tried in criminal case No 47088 which ended in conviction and the petitioners were released on probation on 117
A case in Crime No 5288 under Section 186 and 447 was registered on 2871987 by Kesala police which case was tried as case No 5888 on the file of the Judicial Magis trate 1st Class Hoshangabad which ultimately ended in conviction
This conviction has been set aside by the appellate Court
It is stated that the petitioners 1 and 2 were avoiding warrants of arrest in Crime Nos 8687 and 8787
It seems that a number of cases were registered against the petition ers 1 and 2 and both of them did not avail bail and they were in prison
In this connection we would like to dispose of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos2821 24 of 1989
As we are not satisfied that the Superintendent of Jail and the Magistrate are necessary parties for disposal of these writ petitions these petitions are dismissed
According to Mr RB Mehrotra the learned counsel for the petitioners the sentence of imprisonment for a period of one month imposed on petitioners 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 186 IPC expired on 2151989 and therefore their subsequent detention till 18 1989 was unauthorised and illegal
A perusal of the materials placed on record it is seen that the case in crime No 8787 was registered as criminal case No 47088 and it came to an end on 11789 when the petitioners were released on probation
The case in crime No 8687 was registered as criminal case No 56989
There were 8 accused in that case inclusive of these two petitioners who were 878 arrayed as accused Nos 3 and 4
This case went on for several adjournments on the ground that one or other accused was either not produced before the Court or not appeared on the hearing date
However on 181989 the first petitioner was released on his personal bond as per the orders of this Court
On 1181989 the case was adjourned to 218 1989 for further proceedings
Though notes of the case diary copies of which are filed before us are not very clear as to the reasons of repeated issue of warrants yet we find that these petitioners were under remand in both the cases namely criminal case Nos47088 and 56988
Though the petitioners were released on probation in criminal case No 47088 yet on 1171989 the petitioner No 1 namely Sunil Gupta was in jail in case No 56989 till he was released under the orders of this Court
It is not the case of the petitioners that any complaint was made before this Court in the previous occasion when their release was sought for that they were in prison without orders of remand or that this Court made any observation about it
Under these circum stances we do not see any force in the contention that the petitioners were illegally detained till 18 1989
Accord ingly the first question is negatived and answered against the petitioners
Next we shall examine whether petitioners 1 to 3 were subjected to all kinds of humilitation by being abused beaten up and ultimately handcuffed
At the threshold it may be noted that the writ petition is filed by Mr RB Mehrotra Advocate for the petitioners whose registered clerk has filed an affidavit of verification
The following averments are made in the writ petition That the petitioners were beaten abused and they were taken handcuffed to the Court of Shri Chansoria Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Hosangabad vide paragraph 6
They had been handcuffed and were beaten by the police on number of earlier occasions for holding peaceful dharna and for making representations on behalf of the tribal people vide paragraph 10 
That the authorities have caused injuries physical pain mental agony and insult to the petitioners vide paragraph 13 That the petitioners have suffered grave mental agony insult and physical pain at the hands of the police and the local authorities
vide paragraph 14 879 The above allegations are stoutly refuted on behalf of the respondents
However the complaint of handcuffing is not denied and that action of the escort police is attempted to be justified mainly on the following grounds 1After pronouncement of the judgment in criminal case No 24888 arising out of crime No 5288 registered under sections 186 and 447 IPC the petitioners 1 to 3 on their conviction got agitated turned violent and shouted slogans outside and inside the Court and in such turbulent circum stances the escort party felt that it was necessary to handcuff the petitioners
Paragraph 4651 of Part III dealing with escorting of arrested and convicted persons including political persons falling under Chapter VII of Madhya Pradesh Police Regula tions captioned Protection and Escort  empowers the escort police to handcuff the arrested or convicted persons if the escort police feels the necessity
It has been reported by the Jail Superintendent that in several cases the under trial prisoners have run away from police custody while being taken from jail to Court or vice versa
Before scrutinising the material in regard to the com plaint of handcuffing we shall dispose of the allegations of abuse obscene gestures beating and torture etc
At the cost of repetition it may be stated that all those allega tions except the handcuffing are denied
Sunil Gupta the first petitioner has filed an additional reply affidavit dated 8th July 1989 in which there is no allegation about the alleged torture abuse obscene gestures etc
In his rejoinder affidavit filed in September 1989 by Sunil Gupta himself while referring to the incident relating to Criminal Case No 56988 he has stated
We are doing only peaceful picketing
On this police and the Gundas of the ruling party came and we were beaten by the police and Gundas of ruling party and were forcibly removed from the Block Office
 Barring that there is no allegation of abuse and obscene gestures etc
In view of the conspicuous omission in both the affidavits filed by Sunil Gupta we see no force in the complaint that the police abused tortured and made obscene gestures etc
880 The only remaining complaint to be considered is in regard to the handcuffing
We have already mentioned in the preceding part of the judgment the reasons given by the respondents in justification of the conduct of the escort party in putting menacles on the petitioners 1 and 2
With regard to the reasons assigned by the police Sunil Gupta in his additional affidavit has stated thus This act is incorrect firstly neither myself nor Raj Narain did shout any slogan in the Court though I was hand cuffed in the Court itself but the handcuffing was not done with the consent of the Magistrate nor it was done under his direction
Raj Narain was taken to jail on 21st April 1989 and was brought in the Court on 22nd April 1989 under hand cuffs from the jail itself to Court lock up and then taken under handcuffs in the Court itself in the presence of the Magistrate
 Coming to the Regulation relied upon by the police we would like to reproduce the relevant instructions of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation hereunder for proper under standing the plea of justification
MP Police Regulation CHAPTER VII Protection and Escort Part III Escorting of the arrested and convicted per sons including political persons 465 When to use handcuffs Handcuffing will be resorted to only when it is necessary
Its use will be regulated by following instructions
Instructions regarding use of handcuffs 1 When a prisoner is to be taken from court to jail or jail to court in the custody the Magistrate or the Jail Superintendent should give instructions in writing as to whether the prisoner will be handcuffed or not and the escort commander will follow the instructions but when 881 the instructions are for not to handcuff the prisoner and thereafter due to some reasons if the escort commander feels that it is necessary to handcuff the prisoner he should do so inspite of the instructions to the contrary
2 1    3 The escort commander should ask and obtain orders in writing without fail regarding handcuffing of prisoners from the Magistrate or the Jail Superintendent before taking into custody the prisoner for escorting from the court or the jail
Strict action should be taken against any disobe dience of this instruction
 Undeniably the escort party neither got instructions  nor obtained any orders in writing from the Magistrate or the Jail Superintendent regarding handcuffing of petitioners 1 to 3 as found under the above instructions 1 and 2
The escort commander has also not noted any reason for handcuffing the petitioners on 2241989 on the other hand in the letter dated nil annexed to the counter of SHO no mention of handcuffing is made at all
Let us examine whether the plea of justification is supported by the materials placed before this Court
Nand Lal Sharma Head Constable No 66 who presumably headed the escort party has not stated in his affidavit that he got instructions in writing either from the Magistrate or from the Jail Superintendent to bind the petitioners 1 to 3 in fetters
Nowhere in his affidavit he swears that he handcuffed the petitioners 1 to 3 either under the orders or directions of the Magistrate
Even the counter affidavit filed by Shivhare SHO of Itarsi Police there is no averment that the Magistrate directed the escort party to handcuff the petitioners 1 and 2
For the first time only in the report dated 1071989 the relevant portion of which is extracted above it is submitted by the Sub Inspector CID to the Superintendent of Police Hosangabad that the handcuffing was under the direction of the Court
However in the copies of the daily diary of the date 2241989 it 882 is mentioned that the Head Constable Nand Lal Sharma and the constables of his escort party have been ordered to produce the accused to the Court from the jail after handcuffing them and they were further ordered to take the chains be sides handcuffs from the armoury
These entries are purport ed to have been made one at 1005 AM and another at 515 PM
There is a specific entry in the said daily diary that the escort party had produced the three accused before the Court after handcuffing them
It seems that certain state ments were also recorded from petitioners 1 and 2 on 47 1989 and 571989
One Jasbir has filed reply affidavit submitting that the petitioners 1 and 2 were handcuffed within the court room without there being any occasion for the same  and the Magistrate never endorsed or directed their handcuffing 
The petitioners have produced two photo graphs showing that the left hand of one person and the fight hand of another person are bound in fetters with a leading chain
In one of the photographs yet another person standing behind these two persons is also found handcuffed with a leading chain
A number of persons inclusive some police officials also found standing nearby indicating that these petitioners 1 to 3 have been publically handcuffed
This handcuffing of petitioners 1 to 3 with the leading chains might not relate to the admitted handcuffing of these petitioners on 2241989 while they were being taken from the prison to the Court and from the Court to the prison because the close examination of these photographs reveal that the handcuffing of these three persons should have been on a thorough fare
Though neither the enquiry report dated 10789 of the Sub Inspector of CID nor the counter affida vits filed by the SHO Head Constable and Constables disclose either about the handcuffing of these three petition ers earlier to 2241989 or about the handcuffing of these petitioners while being taken to Court from the jail
We are very much distressed the way in which the respondents have come forward to explain their conduct of handcuffing of these three petitioners while being taken from the Court to the jail but make no whisper about the handcuffing from jail to Court
This Court on several occasions has made weighty pro nouncements decrying and severely condemning the conduct of the escort police in handcuffing the prisoners without any justification
Inspite of it it is very unfortunate that the Courts have to repeat and re repeat to disapproval of unjustifiable handcuffing
As is pointed out by Krishna lyer J speaking for himself and Chinnappa Reddy J in Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration
  this kind of complaint cannot be dismissed as a daily sight to be pitied and buried but to be examined from funda mental view point
In the same 883 judgment the following observation is made with regard to handcuffing Those who are inured to handcuffs and bar fetters on others may ignore this grievance but the guarantee of human digni ty which forms part of our constitutional culture and the positive provisions of Articles 14 19 and 21 spring into action when we realise that to manacle man is more than to mortify him it is to dehumanize him and therefore to violate his very person hood too often using the mask of dangerousness  and security   Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and therefore unrea sonable is over harsh and at the first flush arbitrary
Absent fair procedure and objective monitoring to inflict irons  is to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to Article 21
Thus we must critically examine the justifica tion offered by the State for this mode of restraint
Sure ly the competing claims of securing the prisoner from fleeing and protecting his personality from barbarity have to be harmonised
To prevent the escape of an under trial is in public interest reasonable just and cannot by itself be castigated
But to bind a man hand and foot fetter his limbs with hoops of steel shuffle him along in the streets and stand him for hours in the courts is to torture him defile his dignity vulgarise society and foul the soul of our constitutional culture
Where then do we draw the humane line and how far do the rules err in print and praxis
Chinnappa Reddy J in Bhim Singh MLA vs State of J  K and Others has expressed his view that police officers should have greatest regard for personal liberty of citizens in the following words Police officers who are the custodians of law and order should have the greatest respect for the personal liberty of citizens and should not flout the laws by stooping to such bizarre acts of lawlessness
Custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties
Their duty is to protect and not to abduct
 See also Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and Another19781 884 SCC 248 Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration and Others  and Sunil Batra II vs Delhi Administra tion  Coming to the case on hand we are satisfied that the petitioners are educated persons and selflessly devoting their service to the public cause
They are not the persons who have got tendency to escape from the jail custody
In fact the petitioners 1 and 2 even refused to come out on bail but chose to continue in prison for a public cause
The offence for which they were tried and convicted under Section 186 of Indian Penal Code is only a bailable offence
Even assuming that they objected public servants in dis charge of their public functions during the dharna  or raised any slogan inside or outside the Court that would not be sufficient cause to handcuff them
Further there was no reason for handcuffing them while taking them to Court from jail on 22489
One should not lose sight of the fact that when a person is remanded by a judicial order by a competent Court that person comes within the judicial custody of the Court
Therefore the taking of a person from a prison to the Court or back from Court to the prison by the escort party is only under the judicial orders of the Court
Therefore even if extreme circumstances necessitate the escort party to bind the prisoners in fetters the escort party should record the reasons for doing so in writing and intimate the Court so that the Court considering the circumstances either approve or disapprove the action of the escort party and issue necessary directions
It is most painful to note that the petitioners 1 and 2 who staged a dharna  for public cause and voluntarily submitted them selves for arrest and who had no tendency to escape had been subjected to humiliation by being handcuffed which act of the escort party is against all norms of decency and which is in utter violation of the principle underlying Article 21 of the Constitution of India
So we strongly condemn this kind of conduct of the escort party arbitrarily and unrea sonably humiliating the citizens of the country with obvious motive of pleasing some one 
For the discussion made above we have no compunction in arriving at a conclusion that in the present case the escort party without any justification had handcuffed the petitioners on 2241989 on both occasions ie when taking the petitioners 1 and 2 from the prison to he Court and then from the Court to the prison
Hence we direct the Govern ment of Madhya Pradesh to take appropriate action against the erring escort party for having unjustly and unreasonably handcuffing he petitioners 1 and 2 on 22489 in accordance with law
885 As has been pointed out supra the copies of the photo graphs produced before this Court clearly reveal that three persons evidently the petitioners 1 to 3 have been hand cuffed with leading chains
We are not able to arrive at a correct conclusion as to when where and under what circum stance this had happened
Therefore we further direct the Government of Madhya Pradesh to initiate an enquiry in this matter and to take appropriate action against the erring officials
Lastly with regard to the prayer of claim for suitable and adequate compensation we observe that it is open to the petitioners to take appropriate action against the erring officials in accordance with law if they are so advised and in that case the Court in which the claim is made can examine the claim not being influenced by any observation made in this judgment
In the result the writ petitions are disposed of sub ject to the observations made above
RSS Petitions disposed of


Summary:
In the South Eastern Railway the cadre initially com prised of Assistant Station Masters at the bottom and the Station Masters at the top
Initial appointment of ASM was made in the scale of Rs360 540
The promotional ladder bifurcated into i ASM to SM and ii ASM to SM both in the scale of Rs425 640 non selection and then Rs455700 selection before becoming one common source for promotion to Deputy Station SuperintendentSM Rs550 750 non selec tion Rs700800 Station Superintendent selection and Rs840 1010 Station Superintendent non selection
For moving up the promotional ladder every ASM was required to opt if he would proceed on the channel of ASM to ASM or ASM to SM
Later re structuring was done in C  and D  cadres in the scales designation and percentage in selection and non selection posts
Two alternatives were framed described as alternative I  for the combined cadre and alternative II  for the separate cadres which were to be adopted by the respective zones depending on the prevailing cadre pattern
For ASMSM two alternatives were provided to be adopted by the respective zones depending on whether the existing cadre was separate or combined
In alternative I  meant for the combined cadre SMs in the scale of Rs425 640 and Rs455 700 were designated as Deputy Station Superin tendents and Station Superintendents in the scale of Rs540 750 and Rs700 900 respectively
Pursuant to the re structuring the Chief Personal Officer issued a letter to the Divisional Manager South Eastern Railway that it has been decided that alternative I  enunciated by the Board shall be followed on the said railway and the existing system of calling for options from ASMs for the post of SMsASMs in the higher grade was being dispensed with seniority of staff in each grade shall be determined on 814 the basis of non fortutious service rendered in such grade
Since the aforesaid direction of the Chief Personnel Officer worked to the prejudice of numerous persons who had exercised their options to the promotional channel of Sta tion Master they approached the High CourtTribunal by way of writ petitionsclaim petitions but without any success
Some of these disputes came up in appeal before this Court which were disposed of on July 30 1987 by directing the Railway Board to consider if the Chief Personnel Officer while implementing its scheme deviated from its terms and implemented it to the prejudice of those appellants
The appellants Station Masters of SouthEastern Railway aggrieved by the implementation of the scheme of re struc turing by the Chief Personnel Officer approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which rejected their claim as the implementation was beneficial to the majority and further found that the alternative I  of the scheme meant for the combined cadre was rightly adopted as the cadre of Assistant Station Masters and Station Masters in the South Eastern Zone was combined before 1983
The appellants in their appeal to this Court challenged the correctness of the aforesaid findings and also claimed that the implementation of the scheme was highly unjust and inequitable
It was claimed that if alternative I  was adopted then it should have been given full play and the SMs should have been placed en bloc in the re designated posts without any further process of selection
Disposing of the appeal by directing that the respond ents shall grant promotional benefit to those 204 SMs who have exercised option before 1983 this Court HELD 1
It is not disputed that in the South Eastern Zone the practice of obtaining option by ASM for promotional channel was in vogue before 1983
The dispute was about the time when it was exercised
According to the appellant it was at the time of recruitment and appointment even on pain of disciplinary action whereas according to the officials it used to be offered when vacancy arose according to seniori ty
Unfortunately it was accepted by the Tribunal as well without any foundation in the record by shutting its eyes to the letters dated 14th May 1965 and 20th May 1970 issued by the Divisional 815 Superintendent which shows that options were required to be exercised by ASMs irrespective of availability of vacancy before the target date and if it was not exercised then they were liable to disciplinary action
818F H 819A 2
Even the claim of the Administration that cadre of ASMSM was combined cadre in South East Railway was not substantiated by any document letter or order
On the other hand the letter dated 10th May 1984 issued by Additional District Pay Commissioner to the General Manager recognises existence of separate cadre
819F 3
Existence of separate cadres prior to 1983 and chang ing over to a combined system is not the same thing as claiming that the cadre which existed prior to 1983 was a combined cadre
820C 4
Since the cadre in South Eastern Railway was a sepa rate one the Chief Personnel Officer deviated from the scheme by applying alternative I  which was to be adopted by a zone where combined cadre existed and if alternative I  was adopted then the SMs should have been automatically designated as Deputy Station Superintendents and they should not have been subjected to the selection procedure
In alternative I  SM in scale of Rs425 640 automatically stood redesignated as Deputy Station Superintendents
But the scale does not find place in alternative II
But both the employees unions have accepted the implementation of the letter of the Chief Personnel Officer as h is beneficial to a majority of the employees
Therefore it may not be dis turbed
At the same time all those 204 employees who had opted before 1983 must be entitled to the benefit which would have been available to them on their options
820F H