Special Leave Petition Civil No 3584 of 1987
From the Judgment and order dated 8121986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta in TA No 1143 of 1986
Mrs C Markandeya for the Petitioners
Not present B Datta Additional Solicitor General CV Subba Rao and AK Srivastava for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This is an application for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution directed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench Justice Ashamukul Pal and Mr B Mukhopadhyay dated 8th December 1986
The Tribunal had dismissed the challenge made by the petitioners herein to the memorandum of 1979 declaring that the posts in Production Control Organisation for short PCO in Kharagpur would be treated as ex cadre
There are 75 applicants in this case
At the relevant time they all were employees of the PCO at Kharagpur Railway Workshop of South Eastern Railway
The petitioners contend that these posts could not be declared as ex cadre posts because vested rights of the petitioners could not have been affected
Secondly it was contended that they were treated differently from the employees of the Integral Coach Factory on the Southern Railway and those of PCO there continued to hold the cadre posts
This is hostile discrimination and amounts to violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners
The Tribunal by its impugned order rejected both the contentions
428 The PCO was in existence from the time of the BN Railway
The staff of the PCO were either directly recruited or drafted from different shops of the workshop
In 1958 the PCO was considerably expanded
After considering the question the Railway Board brought out a Circular dated 2241963 laying down the rules for determination of seniority of workshop staff employed in the PCO
It was laid down in the Circular that all posts in the PCO should be treated as ex cadre posts
This is Annexure B  to the writ application which was ultimately disposed of by the Tribunal
The Circular however could not be implemented in the Kharagpur workshop on account of the stiff opposition of organised labour
In the premises the local authorities could not implement the Circular of 1963
The question was discussed with the organised labour in a meeting held on 4th June 1973 and in pursuance of the decision taken in that meeting the memorandum dated 21st July 1973 which is also Annexure B  was issued by the Superintendent
It was evidently stated that all posts in PCO would be cadre posts
It may however be reiterated that this was in violation of the order of 1963
Another memorandum was issued by the same authority on 15th December 1973 which not only declared all posts in PCO to be cadre posts but also laid down that an option would be given to the persons already working in the PCO to revert to the shops
It appears that the question of having incentive schemes for the staff of the PCO was under consideration of the Railway Board and by a Circular dated 971978 the Railway Board declared that the staff from shop floors posted in the PCO would receive special pay of 10 of their pay but this would not be available to the staff who were permanently absorbed in the PCO or directly recruited in the PCO
It appears that this brought a change in the attitude of the labour and representations were made to the Railway Board for implementing its Circular dated 2241963 so that the staff of the Pco would be eligible for the special pay
Joint meetings were held with the labour on 4th and 22nd September 1979 and in pursuance of the decisions taken in these meetings the memorandum dated 4 51079 at Annexure I was issued which declared that the Railway Board s Circular of 1963 would be implemented in the PCO and that all posts would be treated as ex cadre posts
This was impugned before the Tribunal
It was contended that the vested rights which accrued in favour of the petitioners by the operation of the memoranda dated 21st July and 15th December 1973 were affected by declaring that the posts in PCO would be on cadre basis
These were issued it appears in viola 429 tion of the clear directives of 1963 of the Railway Board
Hence these Circulars were in violation of Rule l58 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol
I which lays down that the General Managers of the Indian Railways have full powers to make rules with regard to non gazetted railway servants under their control provided they are not inconsistent with any rules made by the President or the Railway Board
It however appears that the memorandum dated 21st July 1973 was clearly inconsistent with the Circular issued by the Railway Board in 1963 for the former stipulated that all posts in the PCO would be cadre posts
Both these memoranda were issued as a result of the meeting with the workers
In that view of the matter in our opinion it cannot be contended that vested rights have been affected
Administrative re organisation is permissible and as a result of the same rights may be affected but the vested rights could not be taken away
See in this connection the observations of this Court in T R Kapur  Ors
vs State of Haryana  Ors
  Here however in as much as the memorandum dated 21st July 1973 was inconsistent with the Circular issued by the Railway Board no right vested in the petitioners and hence no question of affecting vested rights arises
The second ground was that there was discrimination against the petitioners referred to the Railway Board s Circular dated 13th September 1984 which made an exception for the Integral Coach Factory at the Southern Railway and allowed the PCO to continue on cadre basis
It was submitted that this was a case of discrimination
It appears that the impugned Circular of 1984 of the Railway Board was issued pursuant to the negotiations with the staff in the Departmental Council of Ministry of Railways
The existing arrangement in the PCO of Integral Coach Factory was not disturbed because the recognised Unions there did not want it to be so disturbed whereas in the PCO of Kharagpur the recognised Unions had already agreed as appears from the impugned memorandum at Annexure I  that the Railway Board s Circular dated 2241963 would be implemented in the Kharagpur PCO and that all posts in the PCO would be treated as ex cadre posts
The Railway Board is fully competent to bring about unnecessary changes in the staff pattern of the various units under its control for the purpose of streamlining the organisation and improving the efficiency of the administration
Hence there was a good ground for this differentiation which has a rational nexus with the object of streamlining the organisation
This differentiation cannot be condemned as violative of the rule of equality
It does not amount to hostile discrimina 430 tion
Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class disposition but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of disposition which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the disposition
See D section Nakara  others vs Union of India  at 179
Further the Tribunal modified certain portions of the impugned memorandum and directed that the provisions should be made for those who opt to continue in the PCO at Kharagpur after the issue of the Circular dated 1391984 so that they may be given an opportunity to exercise their option in this regard and be provided with avenue for promotion within the PCO
Previously in 1963 such option was provided and it was stipulated that employees permanently absorbed in the PCO or directly recruited in the PCO who did not exercise option in favour of transfer they would be considered for promotion along with others to higher grade posts in the PCO only
In our opinion it was done to help the petitioners
In the aforesaid view of the matter the Tribunal was right in rejecting the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners
The challenge to the Tribunal s order therefore cannot be entertained
Before concluding it is worthwhile to note that none appeared for the petitioners when the matter was called on
The matter was called twice
We have disposed of the matter on perusing the order of the Tribunal and also upon considering the submissions made by the respondents
The application therefore fails and dismissed
No order as to cost PSS Petition dismissed


Summary:
Respondent Ashok Deshmukh was a Panchayat and Social Education Organiser in the Social Welfare Department Government of Madhya Pradesh when he was temporarily posted as an officiating Block Development Officer in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh on 11th March 1983
His services were returned back to his parent department on 29th June 1984
Aggrieved by the order of repatriation the respondent filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Udaipura and obtained a temporary injunction
The temporary injunction having been vacated he filed a writ petition in the High Court
After the writ petition was admitted and stay order issued the respondent withdrew the civil suit
Two principal contentions were urged before the High Court were 1 that the order of repatriation was contrary to Rule 14 of the MP Civil Services Rules and 2 that the order of repatriation was the result of bias and mala fide attitude on the part of the Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department
The High Court held 1 that the order of repatriation had been passed in violation of Rule 14 of the Rules and 2 that although there was no material on record to support the allegation of any bias and mala fide on the part of the Secretary the order of repatriation was the result of certain wrong complaints  made against him
The High Court quashed the order of repatriation and directed the State Government to retain the respondent as officiating Block Development Officer so long as persons junior to him were retained
303 Allowing the appeal it was  HELD1 Rule 14 dealt with the question of reversion of a permanent Government servant from the officiating higher grade to the lower grade and did not apply to a case of deputation from one department to another
The High Court was therefore in error in holding that the impugned order of repatriation had been passed in violation of rule 14 of the Rules
307D F 2 The allegations of bias and mala fides made against the Secretary have remained unsubstantiated
Unless the Court is sure that the impugned order is really based upon allegations of bias and mala fides it should not proceed to quash administrative orders which are made in exigencies of the administration
310F G C D 3 If mere existence of some allegations against an officer which on enquiry had been found to be untrue were to be treated as the basis for quashing any order of transfer or repatriation made in respect of any officer then almost every such order of transfer or repatriation would have to be quashed because there would always be some complaint by some party or other against every officer
310C D 4 The impugned order of repatriation did not on the face of it show that there was any stigma attached to the respondent by reason of the said order
310F 5 On the material placed before it the Court did not find that the order of repatriation was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
310G C Thiraviam Pillai vs State of Kerala 1976 2 SLR 395 referred to