Case: Kewal Krishan Bagga Vs. Chairman, Railway Board and Others

The appellant, Kewal Krishan Bagga, joined the central workshop at Amritsar as a godown keeper in the year 1953 against a permanent post in the scale of Rs.The Amritsar workshop was taken over by the Government of India with effect from June 1, 1956, whereupon, the services of the existing employees of the workshop were transferred to the Northern Railway on terms and conditions agreed to by the Railway Board. The seniormost 8 out of the 38 godown keepers who were working under the Government of Punjab were given letters of appointment by the Northern Railway asin the grade of Rs.The remaining 30 godown keepers amongst whom was the appellant were offered appointments as clerksin the grade of Rs.effective from June 1, 1956. Thus, as a result of the transfer of employment from one employer to another, the appellant came to be placed in the scale of Rs.instead of Rs.and he became under his new employer, the Government of India, a clerk instead of a godown keeper that he was under the Government of Punjab.3. Since 30 godown keepers and all those working in the clerical cadre in the Amritsar workshop under the Government of Punjab were taken over as clerks by the Government of India, a question arose in course of time as regard the fixation of inter se seniority. That question, as in all similar cases of equation and equivalence, presented a ticklish problem for solution because persons who were working as clerks in the Amritsar workshop under the Government of Punjab were working in a higher grade than godown keepers and after the Government of India took over the workshop, the 30 godown keepers and all clerks were integrated into a common cadre of clerks in the scale of Rs.On December 20, 1957, the Government of India decided that the inter se seniority of godown keepers and clerks who, after the transfer of employment, were assimilated in a common cadre of clerks should be fixed on the basis of their respective length of service. In pursuance of this directive the appellant was placed at Serial No. 176 in the common seniority list. Later, the Government revised irs decision and resolved that persons who were working as clerks under the Government of Punjab should all be treated as senior to godown keepers since the former were placed in a higher scale of pay. As a result of this decision, the appellant moved down to Serial No. 225 in the list of seniority.4. In January, 1968, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court to challenge the decision of the Government of India creating a common seniority list for godown keepers and clerks, and treating all clerks as senior to godown keepers. The petition having been rejected by the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.5. On April 27/28, 1956, the General Manager of the Northern Railway wrote to the Secretary, the Government of Punjab, asking that persons working in the Amritsar godown should be informed that consequent on the transfer of the workshop to the Government of India from June 1, 1956, thestaff of the workshop will be offered appointments by transfer to the Northern Railway in accordance with the terms and conditions which were set forth in the Annexure to the letter. These terms and conditions, in so far as relevant, are as follows : (1) The existing pay and grade of the staff transferred to the Government of India was to be protected; (2) For each existing post/category in the Amritsar workshop, the Northern Railway Administration would indicate an appropriate scale of pay applicable to the corresponding post/category in the Railway workshops : and (3) The staff of the Amritsar workshop would be given an opinion individually to be governed either by the new scale of pay or by the scale which was applicable to them while they were serving under the Government of Punjab. Those opting for the new scales of pay would have their pay fixed at the stage above their existing pay as on May 31, 1956.

Reasoning:
It is necessary in this behalf to bear in mind that whereas the appellant was recruited in 1953 his seniors who were taken by the Northern Railway ashad joined the service of the Punjab Government at least 5 years before him. They had each a much longer experience than the appellant. It cannot, therefore, be said that any discriminatory treatment was accorded by the Government of India to the appellant in relation to the 8 godown keepers who were absorbed asThe absorption was by way of promotion and not by equation. The decision in E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1974I L.L.J. 172], (1974) 2 S.C.R. 348, 389, AIR 1974 S.C. 555 at pp.on which the appellants counsel relies for the proposition that for fixing equivalence the pay drawn by an employee is not a conclusive consideration, has, therefore, no application.9. It was finally urged that clerks in the old establishment were wrongly accorded seniority over godown keepers in the cadre of clerks in the Northern Railway in which both clerks and godown keepers were assimilated. This argument overlooks the basic consideration that clerks in the Amritsar godown while working under the Punjab Government were placed in a higher scale of pay than godown keepers. The decision to treat clerks as senior to godown keepers was, therefore, not arbitrary or irrational. In fact, some injustice done earlier to clerks by fixing their inter se seniority with godown keepers in the new establishment on the basis of their length of service in the respective cadres was later rectified by providing that clerks will be considered as senior to godown keepers.10. Since we have considered the matter on merits, we do not propose to deal with the objection of the Government that the appellant was guilty of laches and should have been declined relief on that ground.