1968 (3) TMI 108 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reversion orders dated June 16, 1967.
2. Validity of promotions made on a temporary and ad hoc basis.
3. Compliance with the Railway Board's Secretariat Clerical Service (Reorganization) Scheme.
4. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
5. Authority of the Railway Board to frame rules with retrospective effect.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Reversion Orders Dated June 16, 1967:
The petitioners sought to quash the reversion orders dated June 16, 1967, which reverted them to the position of Upper Division Clerks from the position of Assistants. The court found that the reversion orders were valid and legal. The Railway Board justified the reversion by stating that the petitioners' promotions were made on a temporary and ad hoc basis pending the finalization of the Railway Board's Secretariat Clerical Service (Reorganization) Scheme. The court noted that the reversion was necessitated by the contraction in the Cadres and the reversion of Section Officers to Assistants, which led to the petitioners' reversion to Upper Division Clerks.

2. Validity of Promotions Made on a Temporary and Ad Hoc Basis:
The court examined the nature of the promotions given to the petitioners. It was found that the promotions to Upper Division Clerks and later to Assistants were made on a temporary and ad hoc basis. The Railway Board's orders clearly indicated that these promotions were short-term arrangements and did not confer any permanent claim to the positions. The court emphasized that the promotions were provisional, pending the implementation of the Scheme, and thus, the reversion orders were justified.

3. Compliance with the Railway Board's Secretariat Clerical Service (Reorganization) Scheme:
The court analyzed the Scheme (Annexure 4) framed on February 5, 1957, and its modifications (Annexure 7) made on March 30, 1963. The Scheme provided for the initial constitution of the service from December 1, 1954, and outlined the method of filling permanent and temporary vacancies. The court found that the promotions and subsequent reversion of the petitioners were in accordance with the Scheme. The final panel for promotion to Upper Division Clerks was drawn up in 1965 based on the Scheme, reflecting the seniority of Lower Division Clerks. The court held that the reversion orders were consistent with the principles laid down in the Scheme.

4. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that the Scheme and the reversion orders violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, alleging discrimination and deprivation of benefits under the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. The court rejected this contention, stating that since the petitioners did not meet the requirements of the Scheme, there was no question of discrimination or violation of constitutional rights. The court concluded that the reversion orders did not contravene any constitutional provisions and did not infringe the petitioners' rights.

5. Authority of the Railway Board to Frame Rules with Retrospective Effect:
The petitioners challenged the Railway Board's authority to frame rules with retrospective effect. The court referred to the Indian Railway Board Act, 1905, and the Indian Railway Establishment Code, issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The court held that the Railway Board had full powers to make rules of general application to non-gazetted railway servants under their control, including framing rules with retrospective effect. The court emphasized that the rules made under the proviso to Article 309 could have full effect, both prospectively and retrospectively, unless they contravened any constitutional provisions. The court concluded that the Scheme, Annexure 4, as modified by Annexure 7, was valid and did not suffer from any defect in its making.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the validity of the reversion orders dated June 16, 1967, and the Railway Board's authority to frame rules with retrospective effect. The court found that the promotions were temporary and ad hoc, consistent with the Scheme, and did not violate any constitutional provisions. The petitioners' claims were rejected on all grounds.