Petition Civil No 651 of 1986
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
PP Rao Ms Bina Gupta Ms Vandana Saggar and Ms Monika Mohil for the Petitioners
VC Mahajan K Swamy Ms A Subhashini and Ms Niran jana Singh for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
This petition under Article 32 of the Costitution has been filed by Prahalad Singh claiming that he and other similarly placed Compositors working in the Government of India Presses all over India are entitled to the status and salary of Compositors Grade I in the highly skilled category with effect from January 1 1966 The said relief is claimed on the sole ground that one TR Thakur has already been given Grade I in the highly skilled category as a result of the judgment in his favour given by the Himachal Pradesh High Court
The writ petition CW 6169 filed by TR Thakur was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on May 211971 and Letters Patent Appeal against the said judgment was dismissed on May 9 1979
The High Court held that the categorisation as highly skilled and skilled on the basis of seniority alone was unreasonable and discriminatory
No special leave 154 petition against the judgment of the High Court was brought to this Court and as such the judgment has become final
Prahalad Singh and others have claimed that they are entitled to the benefit of the judgment given by the High Court in Thakur s case
According to them the said judgment is applicable in principle to all the Compositors whether they were parties before the High Court or not
This peti tion came for hearing before a Bench of this Court consist ing of RS Pathak CJI MN Venkatachalia J
The Bench in its order dated April 28 1989 observed as under  The principal objection to the grant of relief to the Petitioner and those for whom he claims to act is the gross delay with which the writ petition appears to have been bought in this Court
To surmount that difficulty the petitioner relies upon the plea that the judgment of the High Court in TR Thakur s case is a judgment operative in principle in favour of all compositors situated in the circumstances in which TR Thakur found himself
There are other pleas which have been taken by the petitioner but the substantial one is whether he and the other compositors can enforce in their favour the benefit grant ed in TR Thakur s case although they were not parties to that proceeding
At first blush it would seem that the High Court considered the particular facts of TR Thakur the petitioner before it and while granting relief it appears in terms to have confined it to TR Thakur
It is an important point whether as the petitioner now contends before us the direction issued by the High Court can be regarded as a direction operative in re spect of all compositors employed in the Government of India Presses all over India The point is important since the objection on the plea of laches seems to be a substantial one in view of the several compositors who have over the years been promoted to the category of highly skilled compositors and interfering with their status now could mate rially prejudice them
At the same time it cannot be doubted that there can be cases where although the facts of a particular petitioner have been taken into consideration what the Court indents when it adjudicates on the claim is to lay down the law to be ap plied by the respondents to all similar situa tions
There are other cases where relief may be granted or refused upon the consideration of a question involved the question being one which affects several persons of the category to which the petitioner belongs and the grant or refusal of the relief may turn on 155 the particular facts of that case
Various possible categories of cases can be conceived in this context
We think it desirable that in cases such as this the Court should formulate a set of appropriate guidelines indicating when directions rendered by the Court in one particular case can be regarded as operative in other cases
As the matter will be governed both by principle and by the practice of the Court it is appropriate that this case be referred to a larger Bench for consideration on this and the other points arising in it
 This is how the writ petition has come before us for final heating
It is not necessary to go into the merits of the question posed by the Two Judges Bench of this court because we are of the view that the High Court judgment in Thakur s case does not lay down the correct law
The facts which led to the filing of the writ petition by Thakur are as under Prior to January 1 1966 there was one grade of Compos itors Rs 110 Rs
180 in the Government of India Presses
In the year 1963 a committee called The Committee for Categorisation of the Government of India Press Workers was constituted to review the classification of posts of indus trial workers in the Government of India printing presses
The said Committee inter alia made the following recommen dations  There was an equally persistent and wide spread demand from the workers that the cate gory of Compositors should be treated as highly skilled instead of skilled as at present
We have very carefully examined this case as well and were unable to subscribe to this demand
Hand composing in the Govt
of India presses is essentially a skilled job
The Managers were however of the opinion that 10 15 of the Compositors are frequently expected to handle composition work of mathe matical or scientific discourses
For this a knowledge application of diacritical marks superior and inferior lettersfigures scien tific signssymbols etc
are essential
This work admittedly involved much higher skill than originally hand composition
The Commit teetherefore recommend that a suitable percentage of compositors should be upgraded to the highly skilled category with pay scale of Rs 175 205
This category should be given an appropriate designation to distinguish it from the ordinary grade of Compositors who should still be in the skilled group
 156 Accepting the above recommendations the Government of India by an order dated March 14 1966 divided the exist ing cadre of Compositors Compositors Grade I Rs 150 Rs 206 and Compositors Grade II Rs 11 O 180
It was further decided that the Compositors Grade I would be classified as highly skilled and Compositors Grade II as skilled
The ratio of Grade I to Grade II was fixed as 20 80
The initial constitution of the cadre of Compositors Grade I was done by appointing 20 of the Compositors on the basis of seniority cure fitness but trade test was made obligatory for future promotions to Grade I
While implementing the above said decision of the Gov ernment of India 18 Compositors who were senior to Thakur were given the pay scale of Compositor Grade I Thakur challenged the denial of higher pay scale of Compositor Grade I to him on the ground that he and the 18 Compositors who were promoted were performing the same duties and were holding similar posts which were inter changeable
According to him all of them were performing the duties of highly skilled Compositors and as such the higher grade could not have been denied to him
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the categorisation of the senior most persons as highly skilled was arbitrary and discriminatory
The learned Judge issued the following directions In the light of the above I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for and direction is issued to the respondents not to enforce the revised scale of pay in such a manner as to subject the petitioner to a lower scale of pay than the one allowed to the compositors who have been so fixed in the scale laid down for the highly skill compositors
 The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was dis missed by the Division Bench of the High Court on the fol lowing reasoning The contention of the appellants as raised by them in paragraph 5 of their return
that by length of service a person acquires more and more skill and therefore the test of seniority for the purpose of putting a person in the higher category of Grade I was justi fied not acceptable because it is very well known that a mere length of service does not always result in more skill in the working of the person concerned
Seniority would have of course relevance in a situation where two persons having equal skill are to be consid ered
But unless such a situation arose it is very much evident that initial placing of the 157 present incumbents on the post of Compositor in the higher category of Grade I could not have been done in total disregard of the degree of skill which each of these incumbents possessed
 Academic pursuit and experience are two primary sources of learning
A Compositor s job in a printing press is a skilled job requiring special technique
In such a job it would be reasonable to measure the standards of skill by length of experience
The High Court in our view fell into error in quash ing the classification based on experience arising out of length of service
It is obvious from the recommendations of the Committee quoted above that highly skilled category was created to handle the nature of work which involved higher skill than the original hand composition
The Com positors with longer service and who were found fit for promotion were appointed to Grade I and were categorised as highly skilled
Experience itself is merit and can be a valid basis for classification
This Court in State of U P vs j
P Chaurasaia  has upheld the classifica tion based on experience as reasonable classi fication
Jagannatha Shetty J speaking for this Court observed Article 14 permits reasonable classification founded on different bases
It is now well established that the classification can be based on some qualities or characteristics of persons grouped together and not in others who are left out
Those qualities or characteris tics must of course have a reasonable rela tion to the object sought to be achieved
In service matters merit or experience could be the proper basis for classification to promote efficiency in administration
He or she learns also by experience as much as by other means
It cannot be denied that the quality of work performed by persons of longer experience is superior than the work of newcomers
Even in Randhir Singh case this principle has been recognised
O Chinnappa Reddy J observed that the classification of officers into two grades with different scales of pay based either on academic qualification or experience or length of service is sustainable
Apart from that higher pay scale to avoid stagna tion or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is very common in career service
There is selection grade for District Judges there is senior time scale in Indian Administrative Service
There is supertime scale in other like services
The entitlement to these higher pay scales depends upon sen iority 158 cure merit or merit cure seniority
The dif ferentiation so made in the same cadre will not amount to discrimination
The classifica tion based on experience is a reasonable classification
It has a rational nexus with the object thereof
To hold otherwise it would be detrimental to the interest of the service itself
 We therefore hold that the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in TR Thakur s case does not lay down correct law and is overruled
The only ground on which this petition is based having become non existent the petition ers are not entitled to the relief claimed by them and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed
We are however of the view that the cadre of Composi tors Grade I highly skilled  should be enlarged
The Com positors are persistently demanding the upgrading of the whole of the cadre
The Committee also recommended that suitable percentage be upgraded
The Government created the higher grade for 20 of them
Keeping in view the large number of Compositors all over the country and to remove stagnation we are of the opinion that the ratio between the two cadres should be 33 13 66 23
We therefore commend to the respondents to increase the strength of the cadre of Compositor Grade I highly skilled  to 33 13 per cent with effect from April 1 1992
The writ petitions is disposed of in the above terms with no order as 0 costs
VPR Petition dismissed


Summary:
The appellants the victims of the dacoity and other prosecution witnesses were residents of the village where the crime took place in the house of PW11
The accused were closely related
PW 11 s cousin and uncle were PW 3 and the deceased respectively and PW 2 was also a close relative of PW 11
There was a simmering discontent between the family of PW 11 and the family of the accused Sukhari Singh
The accused Sukhari Singh claimed that a pond was bestowed of him by the erstwhile Zamindar before the coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition Act
As the tank was under the control of the accused he prevented the cattle of the villagers from drinking water from it
34 days prior to the occurrence of dacoity the Pan chayat of the village suggested to the accused Sukhari Singh to surrender the tank in the name of a Shiva temple
The accused suggested to the Panchayat the place constructed and occupied by the complainant party the deceased and his relatives for tying their cattle on the unsettled lands at the bank of the pond also should be likewise given to the Shiva temple
The Panchayat was not agreeable to the counter suggestion of the accused
It was the case of the prosecution that the dacoity was mastermined and made at the house of the complainant with a sole purpose to avenge
On the night intervening 5th 6th April 1970 the PW 11 the first informant and his cousin PW3 and his uncle the deceased were sleeping 606 on the cots lay spread in the outer courtyard of their house
PW 11 was awaken by some noise as if some persons were coming
He stood up and switched on his five cell torch and saw 20 25 dacoits armed with lathis bhallas garasas and guns coming towards his house
On his focussing the torch they stopped
Then the dacoits also switched on their torches
PW11 recognised in the torch light the accused inclusive of 5 appellants
Accused sukhari Singh shouted kill kill Accused Munni Singh fired with his gun at P W 11 but the gun fire did not his him
While PW 11 was running one of the dacoits hit him with a stick with an iron ring
There was some oozing of blood but it was not profuse
He ran for about 30 steps to get to his wheat field which was about 2 to 3 feet below the level of his courtyard
From there he saw the remaining part of the occurrence
PW 11 s uncle was shot by the accused Munni Singh and he fell down Other dacoits who were near him started hitting him with spears
One of the dacoits held a ladder in his hand through which he climbed up to the roof of the inner house from where he jumped into the female apartment and opened the outer door
Then the dacoits entered the house and started looting and plundering
Two dacoits scolded his cousin PW 3 to keep lying down on his cot
In the occurrence PW3 received no injury
The dacoits were active for about 15 to 20 minutes
On hearing the noise and commotion of the vil lagers the dacoits decamped with the looted goods
Some of the villagers followed them to some distance but the dacoits kept firing on them
With the result that some of them were injured
PW 11 s uncle and other injured persons were removed to be taken to the hospital but PW s uncle died on the way
Then PW11 proceeded to the Police Station taking the dead body of his uncle with him and lodged FIR PW12 went to the spot and saw the evidence of dacoity in the form of thing lying scattered and some of the articles left behind by the dacoits
He had the injured persons examined medically
He arrested the accused persons Finally investigation was completed by another officer and the accused persons were put up for trial
The matter went to trial under the old Code of Criminal Procedure before the First Additional Sessions Judge against the 6 named persons and one other
There were commitment proceedings before a Magistrate 607 in which evidence was recorded
At the commitment stage 10 persons were put to face the enquiry out of which three accused died
There remained 6 of the original accused named in the FIR and one more not so named to face trial
The trial court convicted all the 7 accused under Section 396 IPC and imposed on them a sentence of life imprisonment
On appeal the High Court acquitted two of them namely Ram Narain Singh the one unnamed in the FIR and one Charittar Ahir one of the so named and maintained the convictions of other accused
This appeal by special leave was by the other accused challenging the judgment of the High Court Allowing the appeal of the accused this Court HELD  1 01
The prosecution had four sets of witnesses which could establish identity of the dacoity
Three sets became redundant and only on the basis of one set was identity of the appellants established
The first set consisted of three injured persons who were not examined at the trial by the prosecution
This set did not help the prosecution at all
The second set consisted of the evidence of PW 3 PW4 and PW9
The names of PWs4 and 9 were not mentioned in the FIR and their evidence was left out of consideration by the Courts below
Statement of PW 3 was left aside by the High Court
In the third set was the evidence of PWI PW5 and PW8 who did not identify any of the dacoits
None of these witnesses was declared hos tile
Thus their evidence rather goes adverse to the prose cution
The fourth set consisted of evidence of PW2 and PW11 whose evidence has been relied upon by the High Court to identify the 5 appellants and on the basis of the very same evidence two co accused were acquitted because PW2 named one and excluded the other and Pw11 named the other one and excluded the former giving rise to a doubt about the complicity of those two
611 612D 102
Seeing the formidable force of the dacoits and their number the two PWs2 and 11 would have been so non pulsed that they would not have dared to betray their presence by switching on and off their torches especially when they were unarmed and were no match to the might of the dacoits
These two witnesses do not claim that they could identify the 608 dacoits by means other than their torches
This part of the story of the prosecution obviously does not inspire confi dence
It is also worthy of notice that PW11 was injured on the head before he ran for safety
That was enough to shake and frighten him
But before the receipt of such injury he claims to have switched on his torch first and to have seen in the first glimpse the appellants and others
But his flash of the torch was met instantaneously with numerous torch flashes by the dacoits and its was like day light as said by PW1
613 F H 103
It is difficult in the situation to believe PW11 that he could in a split second have such a perception so as to identify all the five appellants and some others
It is obvious and natural that behind a lit torch darkness prevails hiding the identity of the torch bearer and persons situated close
So identity of the da coits was not possible by PW11
613 H614 A 104
In the facts and circumstances of the case there is a grave doubt about the participation of the appel lants in the crime because of the failure of the prosecution to lead convincing evidence about the identity of the appel lants as dacoits
There is even no corroboration worth the name in the form of recovery of fire arms and other weapons or of the looted articles from the appellants so as to lend some assurance to the participation of the appellants in the crime
It may well be that the motive asserted by the prose cution relating to the dispute about the pond may have given cause to PW11 to assume that the appellants were responsi ble for the dacoity committed in his house and for PW2 to entertain that belief in a sweep
614 C E