GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. versus ISRO DRIVERS ASSOCIATION
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 941, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
ISRO DRIVERS ASSOCIATION
(Civil Appeal No. 7138 of 2010)
AUGUST 10, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AJAY RASTOGI AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association)
Rules, 1993:
rr. 5(c) and 5(d)(i) – Service Association – Based on the job
description (drivers) – By the employees of Department of Space –
Recognition under the Rules – Permissibility – Held: 1993 Rules
are applicable to Government Servants to whom Central Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 are applicable – Department of
Space has its own service rules – The Service Rules of Department
of Space classify the civil posts broadly under four groups viz. ‘A’,
‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ – Employees of different job description fall in
different groups based on their pay scale and job description – The
scheme of 1993 Rules shows that its intention is to avoid plurality
of associations – The classification of the posts in group ‘A’, ‘B’,
‘C’ and ‘D’ categories is a ‘distinct category’ – Further classification
of posts based on job description is not permissible under recruitment
and conduct rules and the same if permitted under the guise of
expression ‘distinct category’, would defeat the object with which
the scheme of 1993 Rules have been framed – Department of Space
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. As per the scheme of Rules 1993, it is applicable
to such Government servants to whom the
Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964 are applicable. The Department of Space
framed its own disciplinary rules regarding alleged misconduct
being committed by the employees for holding disciplinary
inquiries under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, namely,
the Department of Space (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
1976 was further amended in the year 2013. Annexed thereto,
schedule has been appended to Rule 30 prescribing the
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 941
941
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
classification of Civil Posts under the Department of Space broadly
in four Groups ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’. The employees who are
working in SDSC SHAR i.e. technical attendants, nursing
attendants, technicians, office attendants, gardeners, safaiwalas,
security guards, canteen attendants, radiographers, pharmacists,
lab technicians, nurses, agricultural supervisors, drivers,
stenographers etc. are falling in different groups based on their
pay scales and job description etc. [Para 23] [954-F-H][955-A]
2. There are two different set of recruitment rules. One
set of recruitment rules have been framed by Department of Space
for drivers in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution called as Department of Space (Staff Car
Drivers/Light Vehicle Drivers) Recruitment Rules, 2001
classified drivers in Group ‘C’ post. For the other category of
posts of Assistant, Senior Project Assistant, Personnel Assistant
and Private Secretary, their recruitment is regulated by the Rules
called the Department of Space (Group ‘B’ Posts) Recruitment
Rules, 2009 and with partial modification, the method of
recruitment and designation to the post of Assistant (Group ‘B’
non-gazetted) called the Department of Space (Assistant)
Recruitment Rules, 2016.  At some stages, for other purposes,
categorization of posts have been made indicating ministerial,
non-ministerial, industrial and non-industrial, tenure posts but
broadly under the scheme of recruitment rules, the service
conditions of employees have been broadly classified in four
groups A,B,C & D. [Para 24][955-A-D]
3. The primary object of forming service association is to
promote the common service interest of its members and the
membership of the service association remain restricted to such
Government servants having common interest and all group of
employees covered under the existing JCM scheme were
categorized as a ‘distinct category’ for forming their association.
At the same time, if association/Union is being exclusively
permitted to be formed by the group of employees based on job
description in the organization such as drivers, stenographers,
etc. apart from various category of employees who are working
in SDSC SHAR i.e. technical attendants, nursing attendants,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
technicians, office attendants, radiographers, etc. for the purpose
of recognition under the scheme of Rules 1993 treating them to
be a ‘distinct category’ as considered by the Division Bench in
the impugned judgment, there is a greater probability that the
employees of each of the above mentioned trades/jobs would form
into association in each of the centres/units qualifying themselves
into ‘distinct category’ and seek representation in JCM that would
not only defeat the purpose of JCM but would lead to groupism
obstructing the working atmosphere and neither joint consultation
nor consensus would prevail and that will jeopardize the service
interest of the government servants. [Para 29][956-C-F]
4. It has come on record that presently the strength of the
staff working in various groups is over 16,000. In the given
situation, if any group of employees based on their job description
is permitted to form an association under the guise of ‘distinct
category’ as prayed, it will indeed have an adverse consequential
effect which would never be the intention of the rule making
authority while framing the scheme of Rules 1993. Rule 5(d) lays
down that subsequent association with less than 35% of total
number of categories can be recognized if it commands at least
15% of the membership. The respondent confining itself to
drivers as members cannot command 15% of the total number of
employees covered by the scheme in SDSC SHAR as the
sanctioned strength of the
drivers (around 160) is less than 15%
of the members under the scheme, as a distinct category
considering the Group of employees (A,B,C & D) respectively.
[Para 30][956-G-H][957-A-B]
5. The Latin maxim ‘noscitur a sociis’ states this contextual
principle, whereby a word or phrase is not to be construed as if it
stood alone but in the light of its surroundings. A word or phrase
in an enactment must always be construed in the light of the
surrounding text.  Words and particular general words, cannot
be read in isolation, their colour and their content are derived
from their context. [Para 31][957-B-C]
A-G Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] AC 436
– referred to.
Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, Fifth Edition – referred
to.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. ISRO DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
6. The scheme of Rules 1993 clearly manifests that the
primary object of the scheme is to promote the common service
interest of its members and service association which intends to
accord recognition must represent minimum 35% of the total
category of employees with a rider that where there is only one
association which commands more than 35% membership and
another association with second highest membership must be
recognized if it commands at least 15% membership. The intention
appears to be to avoid plurality of associations which indeed may
not be in the overall interest of the Government servants in
forming service association on their job description. In this
context, the expression ‘distinct category of government
servants’ referred under Rule 5 (c) with its due emphasis in
furtherance of the clarification which has been made by the rule
making authority is, in fact, supplementing the scheme of rules
for its effective and proper implementation which is permissible
under the law unless held to the contrary and that was never the
case of the respondent at any stage in grouping the classification
of posts in group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ as a ‘distinct category’, is
in contravention to Rule 5 (c ) of Rules 1993 and any further sub-
classification of posts based on job description is not permissible
under the recruitment and conduct rules if permitted under the
guise of expression ‘distinct category’ to form service
association,
it would defeat the purpose and object with which the scheme of
Rules 1993 have been framed according recognition to service
association which has been primarily formed with an object of
promoting the common service interests of its members at large
and the literal interpretation in isolation of the term ‘distinct
category’ made by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
impugned judgment granting permission to each group of
employees based on job description/trade to claim recognition
and form their service association would not only defeat the
primary object of the scheme of Rules 1993 but the purpose as
well with which the Joint Consultative Machinery has been formed
to watch albeit the common service interest of its members/
Government servants. [Para 32][957-D-H; 958-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
945
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7138
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2008 of the High Court
of  Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 1914 of 2001.
Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Ms. Shruti
Agarwal, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advs. for the Appellants.
Shekhar G. Devasa (for M/s. Devasa & Co.), Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RASTOGI, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the order and judgment
dated 22nd September, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad holding the association formed
by the drivers based on job description as a ‘distinct category’ laid down
under Rule 5 (c) of Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service
Association) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter being referred to as “Rules 1993”)
overruling the view expressed by the Single Bench of the High Court
dated 9th October, 2001.
2. The seminal facts in brief which are relevant for the present
purpose are that the respondent approached the High Court by filing a
writ petition seeking a declaration in treating their association comprising
of drivers operating in appellant no. 4-Shar Centre a Unit of ISRO, Nellore
District, Andhra Pradesh eligible to participate in the verification process
by according recognition and rejection of their application by order dated
29th June, 1999 on the premise that association formed by a group of
employees based on job
description will not qualify for recognition under
Rules 1993 is in contravention to Rule 5 (c) which is not sustainable in
law.
3. Learned Single Judge of the High Court taking note of the
scheme of Rules 1993 and R5(c) & R10 in particular with later Office
Memorandum dated 22nd April, 1994 of the Government of India, Ministry
of Personnel P.G. & Pension read with decision of the Department of
Space dated 30th May, 1996 arrived at the conclusion that the object of
the scheme is to protect the common interest of the employees of the
establishment and the respondent represents only the interests of drivers
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. ISRO DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
but the association must have a collective voice of all the groups for the
purpose of recognition and after the expression ‘distinct category’ as
referred to under R5(c) being explicitly clarified by the Department of
Personnel and Training (DOPT) and Department of Space, any
association formed on the basis of job description or trade will not qualify
to accord recognition and later communication dated 22nd April, 1994 is
supplementing the scheme of Rules 1993 for its proper implementation
in fulfilment of the object with which the scheme has been framed and
there appears no apparent error in the decision of the authority rejecting
their claim seeking recognition in forming the association representing
interest of the drivers based on job description not being covered under
the scheme of Rules 1993 dismissed the writ petition by its judgment and
order dated 9th October, 2001 which came to be challenged by the
respondent in writ appeal.
4. While revisiting the indisputed facts on record, the Division
Bench was of the view that the term ‘distinct category’ defined under
Rule 5 (c) is not open to be clarified by the DOPT and with its literal
interpretation held the association of drivers as a ‘distinct category’ and
accordingly directed the appellants to examine whether the respondent
satisfy other pre-conditions of the scheme and, thereafter, take a decision
subjected to the verification process for being accorded
recognition under
the Rules 1993. The appellants being aggrieved by the order and judgment
of the Division Bench impugned dated 22nd September, 2008 came up in
appeal before us.
5. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General
submits that the expression ‘distinct category’ as referred to under Rule
5 (c ) of the Rules 1993 has not been defined and that was the reason
the rule making authority visited the scheme and by its clarificatory memo
dated 22nd April, 1994, had entrusted this responsibility to concerned
Ministry/Department to take a decision keeping in view the functional,
administrative and organizational set up. In furtherance thereof, the
Department of Space held its meeting in April 1994 with all the service
associations and except the respondent, other associations agreed that
all the employees covered by the Joint Consultative Machinery scheme
of the Department should be treated as single category and any
association/Union exclusively formed by certain group of employees
based on job description in the organization such as drivers, stenographers,
tradesmen, etc. would not qualify for recognition under the Rules 1993.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
Taking note of the overall view of the functional, administrative and
organizational set up of the Department, a letter was issued to the centres/
units on 30th May, 1996 to call for application of service association who
wished to be recognized under the scheme of Rules and it was clarified
by the Department that the term ‘distinct category’ as defined under
Rule 5(c) will constitute all the employees in the particular region and
not a cluster of employees based on job or trade description like the
members of the respondent, all of whom were drivers, did not constitute
a ‘distinct category’ of government servants and were rightly held not
entitled for recognition.
6. Learned counsel further submits that while the rules are framed
under proviso to Article 309 read with clause 5 of Article 148 of the
Constitution which indeed cannot be supplanted but the administrative
circulars could, nonetheless, be issued to supplement the Rules and the
unoccupied gaps of the Rules could be filled, the expression ‘distinct
category’ not being defined in the Rules has been clarified by the
Department of Personnel by its clarificatory memo dated 22nd April,
1994 to promote harmonious relations and securing cooperation between
the Government and its employees in matters of common concern and
with the object of promoting common service interest of its employees
being the primary object with which the scheme of Rules 1993 were
framed.
7. Learned counsel further submits that
once a clarification was
made of the expression ‘distinct category’ as referred to under Rule
5 (c) by the rule making authority taking recourse to Rule 10 of Rules
1993, the manner in which the expression ‘distinct category’ has been
examined by the Division Bench of the High Court by taking its literary
meaning borrowed from the Dictionary is not legally sustainable and
deserves to be interfered by this Court.
8. Per contra, Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, learned counsel for the
respondent, on the other hand, while supporting the finding recorded in
the  impugned judgment submits that as long as the respondent fulfil the
pre-conditions for recognition as envisaged under the scheme of Rules
1993, it was not open for the appellants to take aid or assistance and
place reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 22nd April, 1994 or 30th
May, 1996 to deny their claim which has been conferred on them under
the statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 read with clause
5 of Article 148 of the Constitution of India.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. ISRO DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
9. Learned counsel further submits that they had formed their
association with the object of common service interest of the drivers
employed in Unit ISRO and remain restricted to a ‘distinct category’ of
Government servants, i.e., drivers all of whom had a common interest
and were eligible to be members of their association and representing
120 out of 150 drivers of ISRO Unit and more than 35% of the
membership required and nature of duties discharged by the drivers in
ISRO being distinct from the duties discharged by employees working in
other categories of posts, were rightly held to be eligible for recognition
under Rules 1993.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the test to determine a
‘distinct category of government servants’ was homogeneity and
commonality of interest which is being fulfilled by the association of
drivers which had a commonality of interest, and was a homogenous
group and entitled for recognition as an association exclusively of drivers
and this what has been examined by the Division Bench of the High
Court in the impugned judgment extensively taking note of the scheme
and in the absence of any express prohibition under the scheme in having
a number of associations, it would justify claim of the first respondent of
their right to be recognized as a service association under the scheme of
Rules 1993 and needs no interference of this Court.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and with their
assistance perused the material available on record.
12. The question that emerges is whether “the association formed
on the basis of job description such as drivers etc. which has been
classified in group ‘C’ constitute a ‘distinct category of Government
servants’ under Rule 5 (c) of Rules 1993".
13. With the object of promoting harmonious relations and securing
cooperation between the Government and its employees in the matters
of common concern and to increase efficiency of public service, the
Government of India established in 1966 the Machinery for Joint
Consultation and Arbitration. The Joint Consultative Machinery Scheme
was introduced at the national level and at two lower levels, namely,
departmental and regional/office level. The Joint Councils operate with
the official members and staff members. The staff members are
represented by recognized service association of Government servants
belonging to Group C & Group D and Group B (non-gazetted staff).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
949
Recognition of service associations for the purpose of representation in
the Joint Councils of JCM is to be carried out in accordance with the
Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1959
which were superseded by the Rules 1993 by a notification dated 5th
November, 1993.
14. The Department of Space under the Government of India
(Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 formulated its own scheme of JCM
in 1977 with the object of promoting harmonious relations and securing
cooperation between the Department and its employees. As per the
scheme of JCM, all Group C & D employees and Group B (non-gazetted
staff) working in the Department of Space are eligible for participation
in the scheme. After the notification of the Rules 1993, the Department
of Space decided to implement these rules in respect of the JCM Scheme.
15. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article
309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution and in supersession
of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules,
1959, Rules 1993 have been framed. The rules relevant for the purpose
are extracted hereunder:-
“In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article
309 and clause (5) of article 148 of the Constitution, after
consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation
to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department,
and in supersession of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of
Service Associations) Rules, 1959 except as respects things done
or omitted to be done before such supersession, the President
hereby makes the following rules, namely:
1.    ……..
2.   ………
3. Application :  These rules shall apply to Service
Associations of all Government servants including civilian
Government servants in the Defence Services but shall not
apply to industrial employees of the Ministry of Railways
and workers employed in Defence Installations of Ministry
of Defence for whom separate Rules of Recognition exist.
4. ........
5.  Conditions for recognition of Service Associations:
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. ISRO DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
A Service Association which fulfills the following conditions may
be recognised by the Government, namely:-
(a) An application for recognition of Service Association has
been made to the Government containing Memorandum of
Association, Constitution, Bye-laws of the Association, Names
of Office-Bearers, total membership and any other information
as may be required by the Government;
b) the Service Association has been formed primarily
with the object of promoting the common service interest
of its members;
(c) membership of the Service Association has been restricted
to a distinct category of Government servants having common
interest, all such Government servants’ being eligible for
membership of the Service Association;
d) (i) The Association represents minimum 35 per cent
of total number of a category of employees provided that
where there is only one Association which commands
more than 35 per cent membership, another Association
with second highest membership, although less than 35
per cent may be recognised if it commands at least 15
per cent membership;
(ii)  The membership of the Government servant shall be
automatically discontinued on his ceasing to belong to such
category;
(e) Government employees who are in service shall be members
or office bearers of the service Association;
(f)-(h)…..
6-9 …..
10. Interpretation:
If any question arises as to the interpretation of any of the
provisions of these rules or if
there is any dispute relating to
fulfilment of conditions for recognition it shall be referred to the
Government, whose decision thereon shall be final.
(J.C. Mathur)
       Joint Secretary to the Govt of India”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
951
16. These rules apply to service associations of all Government
servants referred to under Rule 3 to be formed primarily with an object
of promoting the common service interest of its members and it may be
noticed that the expression ‘distinct category’ referred to under clause
(c) of Rule 5 has not been defined under the scheme of Rules 1993.
17. R5(d)(i) defines the membership of service association who
can be granted recognition has been restricted to a ‘distinct category of
Government servants’ having common service interest and represents
35% of total number of category of employees with a proviso that where
there is only one association which commands more than 35%
membership, another association may be recognized if it commands at
least 15% membership and this clearly indicates that the rule making
authority intended to avoid plurality of service associations with an object
to promote the common service interest of all the group of employees/
Government servants.
18. Since certain doubts were raised by the persons for
implementation of the scheme of Rules 1993,  Ministry of Personnel
P.G. & Pension (Department of Personnel & Training), Government of
India vide Office Memorandum dated 22nd April, 1994 (Annexure P-2)
made a clarification and invited attention to all the Ministries/Departments
and so far as expression ‘distinct category’ as referred to under Rule
5(c) is concerned, the doubt was whether the term ‘distinct category’
means group wise
categorization i.e. group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ or
cadre-wise categorization and what will be the effect of 35% of minimum
membership of employees as referred to under 5(d) and the clarification
was made by the DOPT  for implementation of the Rules 1993 in granting
recognition to the service association.
19. Relevant part of the Office Memorandum dated 22nd April,
1994 is as follows:-
“No. 2/2/94-JCA
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pension
(Department of Personnel & Training)
New Delhi the 22nd April 1994
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. ISRO DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
952
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Clarification regarding Central Civil Service
(Recognition of Service Associations) Rule 1993
The undersigned is directed to invite attention of all
Ministries/Departments to the Central Civil Services
(Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1992, (hereinafter
referred to as the Rules), which were notified in November, 1993
and to this Department’s O.M. of even number dated 31st January
1994 and to say that a large number of references’ are being
received in this Department seeking clarification concerning the
above-mentioned Recognition Rules. With a view to avoid further
references and to expedite matters, the common points of doubt
have been compiled and clarified below for information of all
Ministries/ Departments.
POINTS OF DOUBT
CLARIFICATION
1.
Whether the Rules are applicable to casual 
labourers, 
extra-Departmental 
agents, 
Contingent paid staff, industrial employees 
working in Telecom factories. 
No. The Rules are applicable only to those 
Central Government employees to whom 
the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 apply. 
2.
Whether a Federation or Confederation of 
Associations can be recognised under the Rules.
These 
Rules 
do 
not 
relate 
to 
a 
Federation/Confederation of Associations 
and as such, they cannot be recognised 
under the present Rules. 
3.
Whether the term “distinct category” used in 
Rule 5(c) means group wise categorization 
i.e. group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ or ‘D’ or
cadrewise 
categorization. 
BY a distinct category is meant an 
Association whose members have a 
commonality of interest and function as 
homogenous group. The responsibility 
for defining a distinct category” has 
been left to the concerned Ministry/ 
Department. 
4.
Whether the first two associations are to be 
recognized even in neither of them fulfills the 
conditions 
of 
having 
the 
minimum 
membership of 35%. 
No filment of the condition prescribed 
in Rule 5 (d) (i) _____ before. In other 
words, one association, that is the first 
association, 
must 
have 
35% 
membership 
between 
the 
second 
association with minimum of 15% 
membership can be recognized. 
5.
Whether Association are to be recognized 
centrally or zone/circle/region wise. 
The Associations are to be recognized 
centrally on all ministry/Department basis 
such associations may have their branches 
in the subordinate formulations. 
6.
Whether 
the 
minimum 
membership 
prescribed in Rule 5(d)(i) is for the entire 
Department or zone/circle/regionwise etc. 
The condition of minimum membership 
as laid down in Rule 5(d)(i) is for the 
entire Department. In other words, an 
Associations must have the minimum  
percentage of members amongst all 
employees in that distinct category in 
that Department.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
953
(BIR DATT)
Director (JCA)”
(Emphasis supplied)
20. The Department of Space, taking assistance from the
clarification made by the DOPT vide OM dated 22nd April, 1994 held its
meeting with all the service associations except the respondent agreed
that all the employees covered by the JCM scheme of the Department
should be treated as single category and any association or Union
exclusively formed by certain group of employees based on job description
in the organization such as drivers, stenographers, tradesmen, etc. would
not qualify for recognition under the Rules 1993 in the Department of
Space.
21. In furtherance thereof, Department of Space issued Office
Memorandum dated 30th May, 1996 to implement the scheme of Rules
1993 for recognition of service association under the JCM Scheme.
“3. Condition for recognition of Service Associations for
Recognition
3. 1 A Service Association, which following conditions, will be
considered for recognition under DOS JCM Scheme:
(a) An application for recognition of Service Association has been
made to the Government containing Memorandum of Association,
Constitution, Bye-laws of the Association, Names of Office-
Bearers, total membership and any other information as may be
required by the Government;
(b) The Service Association has been formed primarily with the
object of promoting the common service interest of its members;
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. ISRO DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
7.
Whether an
Association having fulfilled the 
conditions of Rules 5(d)(i) in the entire 
Department must also have the minimum 
membership as prescribed in Rule 5(d)(i) in 
each of its branches. 
No
8.
Whether vacant posts will be taken into 
account for the purpose of calculating 
minimum membership. 
Percentage of membership is to be 
determined 
on 
the 
number 
of 
employees in each distinct category and 
not on the number of posts. 
9-12
…………
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
(c) (i) Membership of the Service Association has been restricted
to a distinct/category of Government servants having common
interest, all such Government servants being eligible for membership
of the Service Association;
(ii) So far as Department of space is concerned, all groups of
employees covered under the existing JCM scheme shall be treated
as a single category in each region.
(d) Only Government employees who are in service shall be
members or office bearers of the Service Association;
….”
3.2 An Association to be recognised should have a minimum
representation of 351 of the total number of eligible employees
in the region, provided that where there is only one Association
which commands more than 35% membership, another Association
with second highest membership, although less than 35% may be
recognised, if it commands at least 15% membership. Percentage
of membership has to be determined on the number of eligible
employees in the region and not on the number of posts.”
22. The application submitted by the first respondent seeking
recognition of association based on job description of drivers came to be
rejected by the 4th appellant by communication dated 21st June, 1999 on
the premise that the association has been exclusively formed by a group
of employees comprising of drivers on job description would not qualify
for recognition under Rules 1993.
23. As per the scheme of Rules 1993, it is applicable to
such
Government servants to whom the Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 are applicable. The Department of Space framed its own
disciplinary rules regarding alleged misconduct being committed by the
employees for holding disciplinary inquiries under proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution, namely, the Department of Space (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 1976 was further amended in the year 2013.
Annexed thereto, schedule has been appended to Rule 30 prescribing
the classification of Civil Posts under the Department of Space broadly
in four Groups ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’. The employees who are working in
SDSC SHAR i.e. technical attendants, nursing attendants, technicians,
office attendants, gardeners, safaiwalas, security guards, canteen
attendants, radiographers, pharmacists, lab technicians, nurses, agricultural
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
955
supervisors, drivers, stenographers etc. are falling in different groups
based on their pay scales and job description etc.
24. That apart, two different set of recruitment rules have been
placed for perusal. One set of recruitment rules have been framed by
Department of Space for drivers in exercise of powers conferred under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution called as Department of Space
(Staff Car Drivers/Light Vehicle Drivers) Recruitment Rules, 2001
classified drivers in Group ‘C’ post. For the other category of posts of
Assistant, Senior Project Assistant, Personnel Assistant and Private
Secretary, their recruitment is regulated by the Rules called the
Department of Space (Group ‘B’ Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2009 and
with partial modification, the method of recruitment and designation to
the post of Assistant (Group ‘B’ non-gazetted) called the Department of
Space (Assistant) Recruitment Rules, 2016. At some stages, for other
purposes, categorization of posts have been made indicating ministerial,
non-ministerial, industrial and non-industrial, tenure posts but broadly
under the scheme of recruitment rules, the service conditions of
employees have been broadly classified in four groups A,B,C & D of
which a reference has been made supra.
25. In compliance of the scheme of Rules, applications were invited
from various associations in SDSC, SHAR for according recognition. It
has come on record that four associations/Unions who represent
combination of group of employees and who fulfil the requirement to
participate in the verification process for recognition under the rules
submitted their applications:-
1. SHAR Employees Association (SEA)
2. SHAR Employees Trade Union (SETU)
3. SHAR Employees Union (SEU)
4. SHAR Antariksh Staff Association (SASA)
26. Out of the above four Associations/Unions, three participated
in the process of verification held on 10th January, 2002.  The results of
verification of membership in SHAR Centre is as follows:-
1. Total number of employees eligible to participate in the
verification process in SHAR Centre                       1207
2. Number of employees who actually participate in the
verification process
   1105
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. ISRO DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
27. The breakup of the numbers of letters of Authorization (i.e.
number of employees who subscribed for each association) received on
10th January, 2002 as a result of the verification of membership is given
below :-
1. SHAR Employees Association (SEA)
651
2. SHAR Employees Trade Union (SETU)
327
3. SHAR Antariksh Staff Association (SASA)
124
28. As per the scheme of Rules 1993, service associations – SEA
and SETU got the required membership and accordingly recognition
was accorded.
29. The primary object of forming service association is to promote
the common service interest of its members and the membership of the
service association remain restricted to such Government servants having
common interest and all group of employees covered under the existing
JCM scheme were categorized as a ‘distinct category’ for forming their
association. At the same time, if association/Union is being exclusively
permitted to be formed by the group of employees based on job description
in the organization such as drivers, stenographers, etc. apart from various
category of employees who are working in SDSC SHAR i.e. technical
attendants, nursing attendants, technicians, office attendants,
radiographers, etc. for the purpose of recognition under the scheme of
Rules 1993 treating them to be a ‘distinct category’ as considered by the
Division Bench in the impugned judgment, there is a greater probability
that the employees of each of
the above mentioned trades/jobs would
form into association in each of the centres/units qualifying themselves
into ‘distinct category’ and seek representation in JCM that would not
only defeat the purpose of JCM but would lead to groupism obstructing
the working atmosphere and neither joint consultation nor consensus
would prevail and that will jeopardize the service interest of the
government servants.
30. It has come on record that presently the strength of the staff
working in various groups is over 16,000.  In the given situation, if any
group of employees based on their job description is permitted to form
an association under the guise of ‘distinct category’ as prayed, it will
indeed have an adverse consequential effect which would never be the
intention of the rule making authority while framing the scheme of Rules
1993. Our view is being strengthened noticing Rule 5 (d) which lays
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
957
down that subsequent association with less than 35% of total number of
categories can be recognized if it commands at least 15% of the
membership. The respondent confining itself to drivers as members
cannot command 15% of the total number of employees covered by the
scheme in SDSC SHAR as the sanctioned strength of the drivers (around
160) is less than 15% of the members under the scheme, as a distinct
category considering the Group of employees (A,B,C & D) respectively.
31. The Latin maxim ‘noscitur a socilis’ states this contextual
principle, whereby a word or phrase is not to be construed as if it stood
alone but in the light of its surroundings – Bennion on Statutory
Interpretation, Fifth Edition A-G Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover
[1957] AC 436, Viscount Simonds has opined that “a word or phrase in
an enactment must always be construed in the light of the surrounding
text.  “…words and particular general words, cannot be read in isolation,
their colour and their content are derived from their context.”
32. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the scheme of Rules
1993 clearly manifests that the primary object of the scheme is to promote
the common service interest of its members and service association
which intends to accord recognition must represent minimum 35% of
the total category of employees with a rider that where there is only one
association which commands more than 35% membership and another
association with second highest
membership must be recognized if it
commands at least 15% membership. The intention appears to be to
avoid plurality of associations which indeed may not be in the overall
interest of the Government servants in forming service association on
their job description.  In this context, the expression ‘distinct category of
government servants’ referred under Rule 5 (c) with its due emphasis in
furtherance of the clarification which has been made by the rule making
authority is, in fact, supplementing the scheme of rules for its effective
and proper implementation which is permissible under the law unless
held to the contrary and that was never the case of the respondent at
any stage in grouping the classification of posts in group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’
and ‘D’ as a ‘distinct category’, is in contravention to Rule 5 (c ) of
Rules 1993 and any further sub-classification of posts based on job
description is not permissible under the recruitment and conduct rules if
permitted under the guise of expression ‘distinct category’ to form service
association, it would defeat the purpose and object with which the scheme
of Rules 1993 have been framed according recognition to service
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. v. ISRO DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
association which has been primarily formed with an object of promoting
the common service interests of its members at large and the literal
interpretation in isolation of the term ‘distinct category’ made by the
Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment granting
permission to each group of employees based on job description/trade to
claim recognition and form their service association would not only defeat
the primary object of the scheme of Rules 1993 but the purpose as well
with which the Joint Consultative Machinery has been formed to watch
albeit the common service interest of its members/Government servants.
33. On the overall analysis, the appeal deserves to succeed. The
impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
dated 22nd September, 2008 is unsustainable and accordingly set aside.
34. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
35. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed.