l Leave Petition Civil No 10784 of 1992 etc
From the judgment and Order dated 1331992 of the Central Administrative Tribunal New Delhi in OA No 262 of 1991
M K Ramamoorthy HS Gururaja Rao R Venkataramani SM Garg TL Roy TV Ratnam EX Joseph DN Paul and MM Kashyap for the Petitioners
DN Dwivedi Addl
Solicitor General VK Verma and Ms Ameeka Singh for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALAJ
In these Special Leave Petitions we are concerned with the Grievance of the employees belonging to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India working in the Railway Audit Department
These employees who were Section Officers prior to 1st March 1984 got promotion from that day as Assistant Audit Officers on a pay scale of Rs 650 30 740 35800 EB 40 1040 and were designated as Officers Group B Gazetted 
On the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission the said pay scale of Assistant Audit Officers was revised to Rs 2000 3200 from 1st January 1986
The grievance of the Assistant Audit Officers Group B Gazetted is that the Indian Railways should not have denied to them the benefits such as issue of Railway Travel PassesPT0s allotment of Railway Quarters giving of accommodation in Rest HousesRetiring Rooms taking of family members while on tour etc
admissible to Group B Gazetted Officers of the Railways
The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal to be referred to herein after as the Tribunal which examined the said grievance rejected it by order dated 13th March 1992
The grievance so rejected by the Tribunal is again ventilated in these Special Leave Petitions seeking redressal therefor
Since the facts which have given rise to the grievance furnish the background for examining its merit it would be advantageous to advert to them at the 299 out set
The Railway Board in its letter No EG 58PS5 201 dated 14th April 1960 addressed to the General Managers of the Indian Railways spelled out its policy in the matter of issuance of Railway PassesPT0s
to the staff of the Railway Audit Department including the Indian Audit  Accounts Service Officers IAAS Officers of that Department thus i
The scale of PassesPT0s
and the rules governing their issue will be the same as applicable to Railway servants from time to time
PassesPT0s
to IA  AS Officers if are to be issued when they are proceeding on leave exceeding four months they should have completed one year s service in the Railway Audit Department and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India ought to assure by declaring that the Officers concerned will return to Railway Audit Department on the expiry of such Officers  leave
IA  AS Officers working in the Railway Audit Department will pot be entitled to grant of certificates which would entitle them to obtain travel concessions on Railways outside India
PassesPT0s
will be issued by the Chief Auditors irrespective of home or foreign line
It was mentioned in the above letter that the same was issued with the sanction of the President of India
The policy contained in the above letter was followed by the Indian Railways for several years
In the meantime the Director of Audit Central Railway by his notice dated 19th December 1983 made it known that the Central Government had on the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India sanctioned higher scale of pay of Rs 650 30 740 35 800 EB 40 1040 to 80 per cent of Section Officers on the staff of the Railway Audit Department and that scale of pay would become effective from 1st March 1984
It was indicated in that notice that the Section Officers on the staff of the Railway Audit Department getting such higher scale of pay will have their designation as Assistant Audit Officers Group B Gazetted
Similar notice it is said was issued by the concerned Director of Audit of every other Zone of the lndian Railways
The said scale of the pay of the Assistant Audit Officers Group B Gazetted came to be revised as Rs 2000 300 3200 from 1st January 1986 as per the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission
Even then the Assistant Audit Officers who Were designated as Group B Gazetted  continued to have the privileges and facilities of Group B Officers of the Indian Railways
However by its letter No EW 87PS513 dated 27th July 1989 addressed to all General Managers Indian Railways the Railway Board referring to the creation of posts of Assistant Audit Officers in the Railway Audit Department and the incumbents in those posts having been given Group B Gazetted status stated thus As a result of restructuring of the cadre of Indian Audit and Accounts Department a number of posts of Assistant Audit Officers have been created in the scale of Rs 2000 3200 and classified as Group B posts carrying a gazetted status
The eligibility of these officers to various facilities as admissible to the Gazetted Officers on Railways in scale of Rs 2000 3500 has been considered but the same has not been agreed to
It has been decided that the Audit Officers in scale of Rs 2000 3200 may be given the privileges and facilities viz PassesPTOs
allotment of Railway Quarters and Rest Housesretiring Rooms and taking family with them while on tour etc
as admissible to the Railway Employees in identical scale of pay viz Rs 2000 3200
 The said letter shows that it had been issued with the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways
But the contents of the said letter were modified by a telegram which read thus No EW87PS513
In partial notification of Ministry of Railway s letter of even number dated 27789 Ministry of Railway have decided that the Assistant Audit Officers given the Gazetted status between 1st March 1984 and 31121985 shall continue to enjoy the facility of passes PTOS
Quarters etc
enjoyed by them as a result of conferring of the gazetted status on them during the period mentioned above As personal to them The said telegram makes it obvious that those Assistant Audit Officers in the Railway Audit Department who got Gazetted status between 1st March 1984 and 31st December 1985 shall alone be entitled to the facilities of PassesPT0s
 Quarters etcand not those who got such Gazetted status after 31st December 301 Then there is the letter No PCIV86 Imp46 dated 30th October 1987 issued by the Railway Board to the General Managers of the Indian Railways which shows that the president of India had consequent upon the revision of pay scales of the Central Government employees recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission reclassified all the posts under the Indian Railways thus Classification Description of Posts of posts Group A All posts in scale Rs 2200 4000 and above
Group B Posts in scale Rs 2375 3500 applicable to accounts Officers only and other posts of Officers in scale Rs 2000 3500all Deptts Group C
All posts in scales Rs 825 1200 and above including posts of Post graduate Teachers Selection GradeHead masters Middle School Selection Gradein scale Rs 2000 3500 Supervisors in scale Rs 2375 3500 and excluding those mentioned for Groups A  and B 
Group D All posts in scales Rs 750 940 Rs 7751025 and Rs 800 1150
 The said classification of posts in the Indian Railways is done as becomes clear from the said letter consequent upon the introduction of Railway Services Revised Pay Rules 1986
In this context it would be necessary to advert to the Railway Servants Pass Rules 1986 made by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution regulating the issuance of passes and Privileged Ticket Orders to Railway servants
Meaning of railway servant for the purposes of the said Rules is given in clause h of Rule 2 thereof
thus railway servant  means a person who is a member of a service or who holds a post under the administrative control of Railway Board and includes a person who holds a post in the Railway Board
Persons lent from a service or post which is not under the administrative control of the Railway Board to a service or post which is under such administrative control do not come within the scope of this definition
This term excludes casual labour for whom special 302 orders have been framed
 Schedule II of the said Rules contains the classification categorisation of Railway servants into Group A Group B Group C and Group D and refers to certain privileges admissible to them
That Schedule which provides for issue of passes on privilege account to Railway servants puts Group A Group B Railway servants in one category
Group C Railway servants are put in altogether a different category for the purpose of issue of passes to them
From the said facts it becomes clear that the Assistant Audit Officers in the Railway Audit Department who hold the posts on the pay scale of Rs 20003200 although designated as Group B Officers are not treated on par with Railway servants of the Indian Railways in the category of Group B Officers to wit the Railway servants holding the posts of Assistant Accounts Officers and other Officers on the higher pay Scale of Rs 2000 3500
Therefore the obvious reason for denial of the privileges conferred upon Group B Railway Officers under the Railway Servants Pass Rules 1986 to Assistant Audit Officers of the Railway Audit Department was the latter holding posts of lower pay scale of Rs 2000 3200
It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant Audit Officers working in the Railway Audit Department could not have been treated differently from Group B Officers of the Indian Railways in the matter of issue of privilege PassesPT0s
to them when the latter No E G 58PS5 201 dated 14th April 1960 issued by the Railway Board with the sanction of the President clearly laid down the policy that scale of PassesPT0s
and the Rules governing their issue will be the same as applicable to Railway servants from time to time
It was also contended by them that the Railway Servants Pass Rules 1986 issued by the President of India since exclude the Assistant Audit Officers from B  category Officers they would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
Lastly it was contended by them that the decision of the Indian Railways that the Assistant Audit Officers of the Railway Audit Department who were given the Gazetted status between 1st March 1984 and 31 st December 1985 alone shall continue to enjoy the facilities of PassesPT0s Quarters etc has since resulted in denial of such facilities to the Assistant Audit Officers who were given the Gazetted status after 31st December 1985 the same decision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
We are unable to find merit in any of the said contentions urged on behalf of the Assistant Audit Officers in support of their grievance for the reasons which we shall presently state
303 The Assistant Audit Officers although working in the Railway Audit Department are the Officers who are appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and work under his
control and supervision
No doubt the Railway Board as seen from its letter dated 14th April 1960 adverted to earlier had decided to give to the staff and Officers working in the Railway Audit Department the facilities admissible to Railway servants of comparable status
It is not for us to go into the question whether it was obligatory for the Railways to confer such facilities on the staff and Officers of the Railway Audit Department who in reality belong to the Department of Comptroller and Auditor General of India inasmuch as that question is not required to be decided by us
When the said letter dated 14th April 1960 containing the Railway Board s policy of issuance of PassesPT0s
is seen it shows that the staff of the Railway Audit Department is treated more generously than the Officers of the same Audit Department in the matter of issuance of PassesPT0s
to them Officers in that the issuance of passes to the latter category is made subject to certain restrictions
No doubt when certain Section Officers were promoted as Assistant Audit Officers and conferred the status of Group B Gazetted  by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India such Officers were treated notwithstanding their lower pay scale on par with B  Group Officers in the Indian Railways as regards privilegesfacilities obtainable by them from the Railways
But when the scale of pay of the Assistant Audit Officers of the Railway Audit Department was revised on the recommendations of the Fourth pay Commission the scale of pay of the Assistant Audit Officers who had been designated as Group B  Officers by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India fell short of the scale of pay of the Railway servants of the Railway Department classified as Group B  Officers by the President of India
It cannot be overlooked that it is the President of India who made the Railway Services Revised Pay Rules 1986 on the basis of the pay revision of the Central Government Servants as recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission and it is again the order of the President of India which classified the Railway servants into Group A Group B Group C and Group D according to the minimum and maximum scale of pay of the posts held by them
Indeed it was not disputed on behalf of the petitioners that the Assistant Audit Officers of the Railway Audit Department who are on the pay scale of Rs 2000 3200 are treated on par with the Railway servants Officers who are on the pay scale of Rs 2000 3200 in matters of giving the facilities or conferring of privileges
What has happened is that the Railway Servants Pass Rules 1986 when are made certain extra privileges relating to issuance of PassesPT0s
are conferred on Railway servants that is Officers in Group A  and Group B  However Group B  Railway servants according to classification made by the president of India on revision of their pay scales are those whose pay scales are Rs2000 3500
What is contended for on behalf of the Assistant Audit Officers is that the fact that their 304 scale of pay is lower then Rs 2000 3500 as applicable to B  Group Gazetted Officers of the Railways should be ignored and the status that is conferred upon them by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India as Group B Gazetted  alone should form the basis to give them facilities or confer privileges on par with B  Group Gazetted Railway servants
The submission made on behalf of the Railways was to the contrary
According to the submission the fact that the Assistant Audit Officers in the Railway Audit Department on the pay scale of Rs 2000 3200 are designated by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India as Group B Gazetted  is not sufficient to equate them with Group B Officers of the Indian Railways who hold higher posts with scale of pay of Rs 2000 3500
If the Railways give the facilities and privileges to the Assistant Audit officers who are not Railway servants treating them on par with Railway servants of Group B  they could find no valid reason to deny such facilities and privileges to the Railway servants holding posts on the pay scale of Rs 2000 3200
If that has to be done the Indian Railways would be required to extend similar facilities and privileges to all Railway servants who hold posts in the Indian Railways on the scale of pay of Rs 2000 3200
It means extending the benefits to thousands of Railway servants involving heavy financial burden on the Indian Railways
We find that the contentions raised on behalf of the Assistant Audit Officers are unacceptable in that if accepted they would lead to unjust results of the Indian Railways conferring special privileges and facilities upon persons belonging to foreign Department of Comptroller and Auditor General of India while their own servants who hold equivalent posts on the same scale of pay will be denied such privileges and facilities
Therefore there is substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Indian Railways that the grievance sought to be made out on behalf of the Assistant Audit Officers lacks merit and calls to be rejected
We accordingly reject the contention advanced on behalf of the Assistant Audit Officers that they should be treated by the Indian Railways on par with Railway servants classified in Group B in matters relating to the conferring of privileges and giving of facilities
Again when the Railway Servants Pass Rules 1986 made in consonance with the classification of Railway servants rightly made by the President of Indian consequent upon the Railway services Revised Pay Rules 1986 issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution confer facilities or privileges according to the class to which Railway servants belong they cannot be treated as Rules which are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
Nor can they be regarded as arbitrary
Hence the contentions raised on behalf of the Assistant Audit Officers on the unsustainability of the Railway Servants Pass Rules 1986 based on Article 14 of the Constitution wan ant rejection as those lack in merit
305 Coming to the last contention viz that the privileges given to and facilities conferred on the Assistant Audit Officers who had been given the status of Group B Gazetted by the comptroller and Auditor General of India between 1st March 1984 and 31st December 1985 are discriminatory all that we would wish to say is that even if such discrimination is brought about by the Railways in regard to the officers of the same category that is Assistant Audit Officers such discriminatory treatment accorded to a small number cannot be availed of by the petitioners to obtain the benefit of such wrongly conferred privileges and facilities
However we do not consider it appropriate to pronounce upon the correctness of the conferment of such privileges and facilities on a small number of Assistant Audit Officers in these petitions when they are not impleaded by the petitioners as party respondents in these petitions
Hence we reject the last contention as well
We therefore find no good reason to disagree with the order of the Tribunal impugned in these Special Leave Petitions
In the result we dismiss these Special Leave Petitions
Howeverin the facts and circumstances of the cases we make no order as to costs
SLPs dismissed


Summary:
The nomination paper of the fourth respondent who was one of the candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State was rejected by the returning officer on the ground that as he was the Headmaster of a Government aided school he was disqualified under section 7d and e of the Representation of the People Act 1951 to be chosen for election
One of the voters of the constituency filed a petition praying that the election of the appellant be declared void under section 1001c of the Act on the ground that the rejection of the nomination paper of the fourth respondent was improper because the latter had ceased to be a Headmaster at the time of his nomination and that further the institution was a private one
The appellant who was the second respondent in the petition contended that the nomination paper of the fourth respondent was rightly rejected not only on the ground put forward before the returning officer but also for the reasons that he was interested in Government contracts and that he had agreed to serve as a teacher under the District Board
The question was whether in an election petition challenging the validity of the rejection of a nomination paper under s 1001c of the Act it was open to the parties to raise grounds 624 of disqualification other than those put forward before the returning officer
It was contended for the respondent that the proceedings before the Election Tribunal were really by way of appeal against the decision of the returning officer and that therefore the scope of the enquiry in the election petition must be co extensive with that before the returning officer and must be limited to the grounds taken before him
Held that an election petition is an original proceeding instituted by the presentation of a petition under section 81 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 and that the jurisdiction which a Tribunal exercises in hearing an election petition even when it raises a question under section 1001c of the Act is not in the nature of an appeal against the decision of the returning officer
Held further that in considering whether a nomination paper was improperly rejected under section 1001c the real question for decision would be whether the candidate was duly qualified and was not subject to any disqualifications as provided in section 362 of the Act
The Tribunal would consequently be competent to entertain grounds of disqualification other than those put forward before the returning officer
The expression  improperly rejected  in section 1001c of the Act explained
Mengh Raj vs Bhimandas  Tej Singh vs Election Tribunal JaiPur and Dhanraj Deshlehara vs Vishwanath Y Tamaskar 1958 15 E L R 260 approved