THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.28997 OF 1998 ORDER: Though this writ petition has been instituted by two individuals, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri J.M.Naidu, that the 2nd petitioner has already been absorbed in some other Railway Department and hence, the lis in this writ petition is currently confined only to the 1st petitioner. The grievance of the surviving writ petitioner is that, notwithstanding a Policy decision taken to consider, for inter-departmental transfers, the cases of such Railway servants, who have undergone Family Planning Surgeries, the same benefit is not extended to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 15-11-1988 with the Railway Protection Force (‘the Force’, for short) and allotted to the Fire Branch. He appears to have undergone Family Planning Surgery voluntarily. The 3rd respondent – the Divisional Railway Manager, Hyderabad Division of South Central Railway, through his letter dated 15-05-1998, solicited instructions from the Divisional Security Commissioner, as to whether it will be feasible to spare the services of the personnel belonging to the Force for considering their cases under inter-departmental transfer policy, on account of the Family Planning Surgeries undergone by them. But however, the Divisional Security Commissioner, on the basis of the instructions passed on to him by the Chief Security Commissioner, South Central Railway, has declined to accede to the request for inter-departmental transfer or absorption of the personnel of the Force. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Chief Security Commissioner has not referred the matter to the Director General of the Force nor did he obtain any instructions from him in this regard. Hence, the rejection of his claim for inter-departmental transfer is bad. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Parliament enacted the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (Act No.23 of 1957) providing for the constitution and regulation of an Armed Force of the Union for better protection and security of railway property and for matters connected therewith and in terms of Section 3 of the said Act, Railway Protection Force has been constituted. The essential purpose for which this force was constituted is only to provide better protection an effective security cover of the railway property. Since, certain extraordinary powers are also needed to be conferred upon the members of the said Force, the Act has provided for special Provisions conferring certain powers to be exercised by the members of such Force. Otherwise, the members of the Force are essentially railway servants and they perform their duties and responsibilities exclusively in connection with railway assets and properties and their main concern was to extend a very effective protection and security cover to the properties as well as those who deal with the railway assets, including the general public. It is purely incidental that they also perform some of the duties and responsibilities, which are akin to those performed by the members of the Armed Forces enabling them to enter upon certain premises and also seize or detain property as well as men, and therefore, special powers have been conferred in that regard additionally. Otherwise, they are railway servants for all practical purposes and intent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to Section 10 of the Act No.23 of 1957, wherein it has been specified that the Director General and every member of the Force shall for all purposes be regarded as railway servants within the meaning of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, except to the exceptions set out in Chapter-VI A thereof. Further, Section 10 of Act No.23 of 1957 makes it clear that they will be entitled to exercise the powers conferred on railway servants by or under that Act. Therefore, the learned counsel reiterates that apart from functioning as railway servants, the members of the Force also perform certain additional duties and functions and by their very nature of calling as such, they will be dealt with and treated as servants of the Indian Railways, like any other servant of railways, is treated. The functions, which have been described as performable by the members of the Force under Section 11 of the Act, are the core functions to be performed by every member of the Force and it is not as if they are unrelated to the functions performable by every other railway servants. It was further contended by the learned counsel that Rule 2(k) of the Railway Protection Force Rules defined the expression “extant Railway Rules” in the following manner: “extant Railway Rules” means the rules contained in the Indian Railway General Code, Indian Railway Establishment Code, Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Indian Railway Code for Accounts Department, Indian Railway Code for the Stores Department, Indian Railway Code for the Engineering Department and includes any rules made under the Indian Railways Act, 1890 for railway servants” As per Rule 21, the general superintendence of the Force shall vest in the Central Government and it may issue such directions relating to administration of the Act and the rules made therein, as it may think necessary. Since the Ministry of Railways, being a part of the Central Government, it exercises overall control and superintendence over all the branches of service of the Indian Railways, it must now be construed, by virtue of the contents of Rule-21, that even members of the Force, who are supervised by the Central Government, must necessarily be treated as members belonging to the Indian Railways. This apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that, in terms of Rule 22.4, the Director General of the Force shall advise the Central Government in all matters relating to the service conditions of the members of the Force and exercise of disciplinary control over them. Therefore, if the conditions of service of the members of the Force are needed to be interpreted in any manner, it is the Director General of the Force, who must do it on his own or he must advise the Central Government in such matters as well. In view of these powers vested in the Director General, the learned counsel proceeds, that the Chief Security Commissioner of the South Central Railway, ought to have consulted the Director General, particularly, in a matter of the nature raised in this writ petition, which will have general applicability to the members of the entire Force, irrespective of the zone in which they are functioning. All policy matters, it is the Director General of the Force, who ought to have been appraised and his directive ought to have been invited on the subject. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Rule 28 of the Rules empowers the Director General from time to time to issue such directions, in the form of Directives, relating to the enforcement and furtherance of the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder and all the superior officers and enrolled members of the Force, thereafter, shall be governed by such “Directives” in the performance and discharge of their duties. Therefore, it was all the more incumbent for the Chief Security Commissioner of South Central Railway to have invited an appropriate “Directive” from the Director General in this regard. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to Rule 80, which dealt with matters relating to Provident Fund, Gratuity, Pension, Medical Benefits and Passes and Privilege Ticket Orders, etcetera. Importantly Rule 80.1 made it clear that the members of the Force shall be governed in all the aforementioned matters by the “extant Railway Rules” in the same manner as officers holing the corresponding ranks or grades in the Railways are governed by such Railway Rules. Similarly, he has also drawn my attention to Rule 86, which dealt with the age of superannuation of the members of the Force and said that the members of the Force shall retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation in accordance with the Provisions of the “extant Railway Rules”. Thus, the learned counsel contends that in matters of important conditions of service, such as, fixation of age of retirement / superannuation, provident fund, gratuity, pension, medical facilities and other privileges, the members of the Force are governed by the same set of Rules by which the railway officers / employees of corresponding grades are governed. He, therefore, contends that it is only appropriate that all other Rules by which the rest of the railway servants are governed should automatically be rendered applicable to the members of the Force. He further elaborates this contention by pointing out to Rule-117, wherein it was mentioned that in all other matters not prescribed in these Rules, the members of the Force, irrespective of their ranks, shall be governed by the Provisions contained in the “extant Railway Rules”, as applicable to railway servants of corresponding grades. It is further contended that the railway servants, who have voluntarily undergone Family Planning Surgeries, have been offered the incentive to seek inter-departmental transfer, realizing that in the post-surgical period, such employees need some additional convenience to render useful service to the Organisation. Such a policy measure has been ushered not only to encourage the railway servants in large numbers to voluntarily undergo the Family Planning Surgeries, but also to provide the necessary reliefs for them as it will help them to move out of hard and hazardous nature of duties and prefer less arduous nature of duties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this policy of the railways, which is applicable to all other railway servants in thousands of numbers, ought to have been extended to the few hundred numbers of the Force as well. Failure to do so amounts to discriminating the members of the Force from the rest of the railway servants. Per contra, Sri Sanghi, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for various reasons, including for the reason that the writ petitioner has not chosen to implead the Union of India as well as the Director General of the Force as party respondents. This apart, it is contended that policy decisions are taken by the Ministry of Railways or by any of the senior officers of the Zonal Railways, depending upon various local factors, including those which have got long-term benefits both to the Organisation as well as to the employees. All decisions taken at the Zonal level or at the Ministry of Railways level, will not be automatically applicable to the members of the Force. Members of the Force are entirely different class by themselves and they cannot compare in any respect with the officers and other servants of the Indian Railways. The nature of duties and responsibilities performed and discharged by the members of the Force are more akin to the members of any other armed forces of the Union. Incidentally, the Force has been created to protect and provide an extra- ordinary security cover to the assets of the railways. Inasmuch as the railways perform one of the most important tasks of the State, namely, providing transportation not only to the passenger public but also to the freight, Indian Railways occupies a pre-eminent position in the matter of transportation and hence, it has a direct role to play in the Indian economy. The railways are exposed constantly to the public interaction, hence, they needed a specialized protection and security cover to be put in place, as the rest of the railway servants will be preoccupied with discharging their duties, essentially concerning to the transportation, networking and related matters and hence, the Force has been specifically created. But for the fact that this Force has been created for protecting the railway properties exclusively, the members of the Force could not have been found at the railway premises exclusively. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel contends that there is an essential distinction between the members belonging to the various services of Indian Railways and the members of the Force. He further submits that Indian Railways Act, having exhaustively dealt with various aspects of the matter, the Parliament while enacting Act No.23 of 1957, later on, thought it appropriate to derive upon such an advantage instead of reiterating all these Provisions all over again, hence, there were useful references made to the Indian Railways Act and various sets of Rules framed thereunder. By making a reference to the Indian Railways Act or the Rules made thereunder, either under Act No.23 of 1957 or Rules made thereunder, no other special advantage is sought to be conferred upon the members of the Force. What has already been provided, in great detail, therefore, is merely burrowed in the matter of application to the members of the Force instead of indulging in making those very set of Rules all over again to govern the members of the Force. Therefore, reference made either under Section 10 of the Act or to various Rules, referred to supra and as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are of no help to the cause of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that until and unless the members of the Force are essentially declared as railway servants automatically, the policy decision of inter-departmental transfers cannot be extended to them. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. To my mind, the contention canvassed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways deserves to be accepted. While enacting Act No.23 of 1957, which is a later enactment, Parliament has borrowed upon the previous experience available in the form of Indian Railways Act, 1890. Similarly, while framing Rules under Act No.23 of 1957, the Rules, which were already framed governing the various conditions of service of railway servants, were borrowed. It is not an unusual experience; the Legislature seeks to save and minimize the time consumed while enacting Laws. Borrowing upon already existing Provisions of Law is a well-known legislative device, it would help save time and it would be of great help in the matter of implementation of the Provisions of any subsequent Enactment to follow the same procedures and standards, which have come to be settled while working out the analogous Provisions of a previous legislation. Therefore, this legislative technique is also employed by the Parliament while enacting Act No.23 of 1957. The very preamble of Act No.23 of 1957 makes it, unmistakably, clear that the Force is an Armed Force of the Union and Section 11 of Act No.23 of 1957 has listed out the most important and core duties to be performed by the members of such a Force. They are vastly and qualitatively different from those, which are liable to be performed by the rest of the railway servants. I, therefore, have no hesitation to reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the members of the Force for all practical purposes must also be treated as the members belonging to the Indian Railways. Far from that, they are one of the Armed Forces of the Union. Central Government or the Union of India is one composite and monolithic body. However, it functions through various units. They may be called Ministries or Departments, but each one is a watertight compartment. Employees of the Ministry of Railways cannot be considered as employees of Ministry of Defense or the vice versa, notwithstanding, both the Ministries are controlled, regulated and systemized by the Union of India. Members of the Force, to my mind, therefore, have to be treated as separate and distinct from the members of the Railways. But, at the same time, the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that wherever there is a grave necessity to take a policy decision, which will help in uniform applicability and also help in improving the morale of the members of the Force, such matters deserve to be brought to the notice of the Director General of the Force. As was noticed supra, the Director General of the Force has been conferred with very special power of even advising the Central Government in matters relating to the conditions of service of the members of the Force and in terms of Rule-28, he can also issue Directives, which will be binding and enforceable by the officers or the employees of the Force itself. Therefore, it would have been more appropriate for the Chief Security Commissioner of the South Central Railway to have brought to the notice of the Director General of the Force as to whether the benefit of inter-departmental transfer should be made available to the members of the Force or not. But however, since the Union of India and the Director General of the Force are not parties to this writ petition, I cannot issue any such directions to them. But however, it shall be open to the Chief Security Commissioner of the South Central Railway, Secunderabad, if so advised, to take up the matter relating to the transfer of members of the Force to another department of the Ministry of Railways provided the Ministry of Railways is equally willing for such a transfer of the members of the Force to their ranks. Except to the extent indicated supra, I do not find any merit to issue a writ as prayed for. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, but however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 12th November 2009