Case: E.S.P.Rajaram and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors

2. The appellants who were appointed as Traffic Apprentices in Southern Railway prior to May 15, 1987, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short the CAT) dated October 4, 1996 in OA No. 1096 of 1996 dismissing the case with the observation that it would be appropriate for the applicants to approach the Supreme Court for any clarification/review of the judgment in the case titled Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskar and other, 1996(4) SCC 416 : 1996(4) SCT 57 (SC). The controversy which arose in that case was regarding the claim of Traffic Apprentices appointed prior to 15.5.1987 that they should be given the scale of pay of Rs.benefit of which was available to Traffic Apprentices recruited after 15.5.1987. Similar claims were raised before different benches of the CAT. There had been divergence of opinion between the different benches, some accepting the claim ofTraffic Apprentices for the higher scale of pay, some other benches taking a contrary view, The Ernakulam bench of CAT had quashed the memorandum dated 15.5.1987 issued by the Railway Board in which it was provided that the higher scale of pay would be admissible only to the Traffic Apprentices recruited after the date of the memorandum. These conflicting views taken by different benches of the CAT came up for consideration by this Court in the case of Union of India and others v. M. Bhaskar and others (supra), in which a Bench of three learned Judges held inter alia (i) that Ruleof the Indian Railway Establishment Code which had come to be made pursuant to the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution permitted the Railway Board to issue necessary instructions regarding recruitment in the lowest grade and the memorandum dated 15.5.1987 having been issued in exercise of that power, the Board had valid authority to issue thethat since the recruitment of apprentices under the impugned memorandum was to man the posts, not to Assistant Station Masters, Assistant Yard Masters etc. as before, but of Station Masters and Yard Masters and the standard of examination for the apprentices to be recruited after 15.5.1987 was required to be higher than that which was prevailing, giving them higher pay scales or reducing the period of their training, could not be said to be discriminatory, arbitrary orThat the cut off date 15.5.1987 is not arbitrary since the Court felt satisfied that the date is of relevance and these memorandum as given came to be issued in the circumstances noticed in the judgment. This Court upheld the validity of the memorandum. The conclusions arrived at by this Court were summed up in paragraph 17 of the judgment which reads as followsAll the appeals, therefore, stand disposed of by setting aside the judgments of those tribunals which have held that theTraffic/Commercial Apprentices had become entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs.by the force of memorandum of 15.5.1987. Contrary view taken is affirmed. We also set aside the judgment of the Ernakulam Bench which declared the memorandum as invalid; so too of the Patna Bench in appeal @ SLP (C) No. 15438 of 1994 qua respondent 1. We also state that cases of respondents 2 to 4 in appeals @ SLPs (C) Nos.of 1994 do not stand on different footing.In paragraph 18 of the judgment this Court considering the hardship which may be caused to the appellants concerned directed Union of India and its officers not to recover the amount already paid. The said paragraph is quoted herein belowDespite the aforesaid conclusion of ours, we are of the view that the recovery of the amount already paid because of the aforesaid judgments of the Tribunals would cause hardship to the respondents/appellants concerned and, therefore, direct the Union of India and its officers not to recover the amount already paid. This part of our order shall apply (1) to the respondent/appellants who are before this Court; and (2) to theapprentices in whose favour judgment had been delivered by any CAT and which had become final either because no appeal was carried to this Court or, if carried, the same was dismissed. This benefit would be available to no other.In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment, the departmental authorities gave appropriate placement in the scale of pay to the appellants who were recruited as Traffic Apprentices prior to 15.5.1987. They were given the pay of scale of Rs.which stood revised Rs.on the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission and not the scale of Rs.which was revised to Rs.Feeling aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed OA No. 1096/96 which was disposed of by the judgment dated 4th of October, 1996 of the Madras Bench of the CAT in the manner noted earlier. Thereafter the appellants filed SLP No. 5373 of 1997 giving rise to this appeal. In the said SLP a bench of three learned Judges of this Court by the Order passed on 6.11.1997 directed that the matter be placed before a Constitution Bench, since the judgment in M. Bhaskars case (supra) was delivered bybench. The referred order is quoted hereunderthis special leave petition the grievance of the petitioners is against the Direction No. 2 contained in Para 18 of the judgment of this Court in Union of IndiaOrs. v. M. BhaskarOrs., 1996(4) SCC 416, passed by the Bench of Three learned Judges whereby it has been directed that the order contained in para 18 would apply toapprentices (Traffic) in whose favour judgment has been delivered by any CAT and which had become final either because no appeal was carried to this Court or, if carried, the same was dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the correctness of these directions on the ground that finality of the orders passed in the case of the petitioners as a result of the special leave petition filed against the order of the CAT having been dismissed by this Court, could not be reopened as a result of the said directions. Since the judgment in M. Bhaskars case (supra) was delivered by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, we consider it appropriate that the matter be placed before the Constitution Bench. It is directed that the matter may be placed before the Honble Chief Justice for directions in thisthe meanwhile, it is directed that the status quo with regard to reversion in rank and reduction in pay scales shall be maintained, as it exists today."

Reasoning:
8. We have carefully perused the judgment in M. Bhaskars case (supra). The decision in that case has been taken on a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (1968 Edn.), and in the light of certain general principles of law relating to recruitment cogent reasons have been given in support of the findings and conclusions arrived at in the judgment. As noted earlier no contention was advanced before us pointing out any serious error in the decision therein. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case placed before their Lordships the decision is correct and warrants no interference.From the conspectus of the views expressed in the decided cases noted above it is clear that this Court has invoked the powers vested under Section 142 of the Constitution in different types of cases involving different fact situations for doing complete justice between the parties.In the case on hand the controversy relates to the scale of pay admissible for Traffic Apprentices in the Railways appointed prior to thedate. The controversy in its very nature is one which applies to all such employees of the Railways; it is not a controversy which is confined to some individual employees or a section of the employees. If the judgment of the tribunal which had taken a view contrary to the ratio laid down by judgment of this Court in M. Bhaskars case (supra) was allowed to stand then the resultant position would have been that some Traffic Apprentices who were parties in those cases would have gained an unfair and undeserved advantage over other employees who are or were holding the same post. Such enviable position would not only have been per se discriminatory but could have resulted in a situation which is undesirable for a cadre of large number of employees in a big establishment like that of the Indian Railways. To avoid such a situation this Court made the observations in paragraph 17 of the judgment. At the cost of repetition we may reiterate that since the main plank of argument of the appellants was that since they were not parties in the case they had no opportunity to place their case before this Court made the observations in paragraph 17 of the judgment as aforementioned we specifically asked learned counsel appearing for the parties to place the argument in support of their challenge to the observations made by this Court on merits. No point of substance assailing the observations on merits could be placed by them. The only contention made in that regard was some of the employes who were given benefit in the judgments of the CAT have got further promotions and they may lose the benefit of such promotion in case the observations made in paragraph 17 of the judgment are allowed to stand as it is. We are not impressed by the contention raised. If some employees were unjustly and improperly granted a higher scale of pay and on that basis were given promotion to a higher post then the basis of such promotion been on athe superstructure built on such foundation should not be allowed to stand. This is absolutely necessary for the sake of maintaining equality and fair play with the other similarly placed employees. However, in our considered view, it will be just and fair to clarify that any amount drawn by such employees either in the basic post (Traffic Apprentice) or in a promotional post will not be required to be refunded by the employee concerned as a consequence of this judgment. This position also follows as a necessary corollary from the observations made by this Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment in M. Bhaskars case (supra).