c No 75 Of 1991
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India RP Singh for the Petitioners
G Ramaswamy Attorney General AK Srivastava and Ms A Subhashini NP for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA CJ
This is an application under Arti cle 32 of the Constitution by 55 persons both men and women claiming the benefit of the scheme of pension for Freedom Fighters
It is the common contention of the petitioners that they had joined the Arya Samaj movement in the late 1930s within the erstwhile Nizam s State of Hyderabad and each of them had been convicted under different provisions of the crimi nal law then prevailing within the Nizam s State and sen tenced to various terms of imprisonment
In the case of most of them the term of imprisonment was around two years
They maintained that the Arya Samaj movement has been equated with the freedom struggle and the benefit of the pension scheme is admissible to those who had participated in the movement as Arya Samajists
According to them in the prime of youth the petitioners had been motivated by the call of Mahatma Gandhi the Father of the Nation and leaders like the late Pt
Jawaharlal Nehru Dr Rajendra Prasad and others and had given up their home and hearth and had joined the agitation within the Nizam s State and suffered the consequences
Since their claim for pension had not been accepted by the Government of India they have applied to this Court for appropriate direction for being admitted to the benefits of the scheme
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Under Secretary Alam in the Ministry of Home Affairs who while not disputing the assertion of the peti tioners that the Union of India had accepted the Arya Samaj movement to be a part of the freedom struggle has disputed the entitlement of pension in the case of most of the peti tioners
118 Petitioners have relied upon the decision of this Court dated July 16 1991 in Writ Petition No 119089 Duli Chand  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors where similar relief claimed by 41 persons had been accepted
That case accord ing to the counter affidavit was disposed of ex pane and by accepting all the allegations of the petitioners therein
In view of the dispute now raised in the counter affidavit particularly with reference to the factual aspects we do not think it would be appropriate to dispose of the present petition by adopting the order of this Court in the said writ petition
It is the accepted position that if petitioners suffered the minimum sentence of six months of imprisonment on ac count of their participation in the Arya Samaj movement they would be entitled to pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme
The question for examination there fore is whether petitioners did suffer such sentence
As we have already mentioned most of the petitioners have produced material to show that they had participated as alleged and were sentenced to imprisonment for terms exceed ing six months
While they were undergoing sentence without their praying for any remission a general amnesty was declared by the then Nizam on his birthday and the sentence was reduced and the petitioners were set free
Freedom Fighters  Pension Scheme of 1972 was renamed as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980
The bro chure published by the Union of India indicates A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment for six months in the mainland jails before independence in the struggle for independence is eligible to be admitted to the benefits of the pension
It has already been indicated that each of the petitioners had been convicted and was ordered to suffer imprisonment of more than six months
The petitioners  assertion that they did not claim remission has not been doubted or disputed
In the facts of the case it would be appropriate to hold that each of the petitioners satisfied the condition for earning the benefit of pension and the fact that while undergoing sentence which was for a period beyond six months remission had been granted and they were let off earlier would not take away their right to earn pension
Learned Attorney General appearing for the respond ents has accepted this construction of the entitlement clause
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the re spondents are directed to admit each of the petitioners to pension under the Scheme within two months hence
The pen sion be paid with effect from 1st August 1990 as in the connected case
No costs
VPR Petition allowed


Summary:
The PCO of the Integral Coach Factory comprises of four wings which include the Progress and Inspection Wings
The order dated 861982 by General Manager stated that in accordance with the Railway Board s approval the Progress Wing alone of the PCO would be a separate cadre and not the remaining wings
The Inspection Wing was not treated as a separate cadre unlike the Progress Wing
Being aggrieved the respondents the employees in the Inspection Wing filed Writ Petition in the High Court which was allowed by the Single Bench
Meanwhile the Integral Coach Factory issued a circular on 2191984 conveying Railway Board s decision dated 1391984 regarding the staffing pattern of the PCOs
in the workshops including the Integral Coach Factory
Accord ing to this decision all posts in the PCO except the Progress Wing continued to be ex cadre posts and the tenure of these posts was directed to be strictly adhered to
The existing position regarding en cadering of the posts in the PCO in all wings of Southern Railway and Progress Wing of Integral Coach Factory was allowed to be continued
The writ appeal of the railway administration was dis missed by the Division Bench of the High Court against which the present appeal by special leave was preferred by the Railway Administration
896 It was contended that the Inspection Wing performed the function of inspecting the quality of the products of the Integral Coach Factory and thereby ensured quality control of the products whereas the Progress Planning and Time Study Wings of the PCO were involved in the manufacture of these products and there was thus an intelligible differ entia between the function of the Inspection Wing on one side and the remaining Wings on the other
Allowing the appeal of the Railway Administration this Court HELD 1
In view of the nature of functions performed by the four different wings of the PCO the High Court s view that the Inspection Wing and the Progress Wing of the PCO must be classified together and treated as separate cadres cannot be accepted
It is significant that even at some of the earlier stages Inspection Wing was treated differently as a matter of policy
901H 902A 2
The work of the Inspection Wing is to inspect the quality of the manufactured products to ensure quality control while the Progress Wing is concerned with the stage prior tO manufacture of the products
For the efficiency of the Inspection Wing which performs the duty of exercising vigilance over the production for the sake of ensuring quality of the products it is not unreasonable to think that a periodic rotation of its personnel would be conducive to efficient functioning of the Inspection Wing
The perma nency of personnel in the Inspection Wing can promote leth argy in them and may also tend to create vested interests
The possibility of change therein makes the existing person nel more vigilant to avoid any lapse which could be discov ered by the replacement
The highest possible standards of vigilance by them is achieved by the possibility of rever sion to the shop floor against their will if the required degree of efficiency and standard in performance of the duty is not maintained
902B D 3
The work of the Inspection Wing being at the end point with no further scrutiny thereafter rotation of its personnel is likely to promote the efficiency of the unit
This factor is sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for classification of the Inspection Wing differently from the Progress Wing and there is no ground to complain of discrim ination if according to the Railway Board s policy the Inspection Wing is not treated as a separate cadre like the Progress Wing
The power of the railway administration to formulate such a policy provided it is not discriminatory being rightly not challenged this conclusion alone is sufficient to uphold the action of the railway administra tion
902D F 897 4
The authority Of the Railway Board to adopt the policy to bring about the necessary changes in the staff pattern for improving the efficiency of the administration of units under its control and for the purpose of streamlin ing the Organisation provided there was no discrimination is undoubted
903A SK Chakarborthy and Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
 1988 Supp 1 SCR 425 referred