Case: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA &amp; ORS.  Vs. ISRO DRIVERS ASSOCIATION

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 29 th 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 22 nd April, 1994 of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pension read with decision of the Department of Space dated 30 th 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 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 22 nd 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 9 th 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 22 nd September, 2008 came up in appeal before us.

Court's reasoning:
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.20. The Department of Space, taking assistance from the clarification made by the DOPT vide OM dated 22 nd 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 30 th May, 1996 to implement the scheme of Rules 1993 for recognition of service association under the JCM Scheme.22. The application submitted by the first respondent seeking recognition of association based on job description of drivers came to be rejected by the 4 th appellant by communication dated 21 st 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 supervisors, drivers, stenographers etc. are falling in different groups based on their pay scales and job description etc.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 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 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.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.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.