2015 (4) TMI 196 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge to constitutional validity of Rule 4 of the TA Rules, 2003 and Rule 5 of the STA Rules, 2003 - reconstitution of cadres - seniority dispute amongst employees of the Customs and Central Excise Department. - bifurcation, and reamalgamation of cadres. - Held that - ministerial cadre as it originally existed, comprised of posts of Deputy Office Superintendent (Levels 1 and 2), Upper Division Clerk, Lower Division Clerk, Stenographer (Senior Grade and Ordinary Grade), Draftsman etc. Consequent upon promulgation of the Electronic Data Processing Posts (Group C Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1992, a separate cadre of Data Entry Operators came to be created. Appointment thereto, at the time of initial constitution of the cadre of Data Entry Operators, was made out of the original ministerial cadre. The posts under the 1992 Rules, had a different nomenclature, vis- vis the posts in the ministerial cadre. Their duties and responsibilities were separate and distinct, from that of the ministerial cadre. So were their avenues of promotion. The lowest post in the cadre of Data Entry Operators was designated as Data Entry Operator Grade A . Onward promotion was to the post of Data Entry Operator Grade B , and thereafter, to Data Entry Operator Grade C , and finally, to Data Entry Operator Grade D . In the above view of the matter, it is not possible for us to accept, that the creation of the cadre of Data Entry Operators, can be described as a mere bifurcation of the original cadre. In the present controversy, it is not possible to conclude, that the original position was ever restored. Consequent upon the promulgation of the TA Rules, 2003 and the STA Rules, 2003, the amalgamation resulted in appointments to the cadres of Tax Assistants and Senior Tax Assistants. Neither of the parties concerned, held either of these posts prior to the promulgation of the abovementioned rules. It is, therefore, that we must conclude, that the judgment rendered in Om Prakash Sharma s case (1985 (4) TMI 317 - SUPREME COURT) was incorrectly applied, while adjudicating upon the present controversy. It is apparent from a collective perusal of the conclusions recorded in the judgments extracted in the foregoing paragraph, that chances of promotion do not constitute a condition of service. In that view of the matter, it is inevitable to hold, that the High Court erred in recording its eventual determination on the basis of the fact that the promulgation of the TA Rules, 2003 and the STA Rules, 2003 was discriminatory and arbitrary with regard to the fixation of the inter se seniority, since the same seriously prejudiced the chances of promotion of the erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre, namely, those members of the original ministerial cadre, who had not opted for appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data Entry Operators, with reference to and in comparison with, those members of the original ministerial cadre who had opted for appointment/absorption into the cadre of Data Entry Operators. Under Rule 4(1) thereof, Upper Division Clerks and Data Entry Operators Grade A had been equated with one another, and members belonging to the aforesaid two cadres had been given the highest position in the seniority list (at the stage of the initial constitution). The inter se seniority amongst the Upper Division Clerks and Data Entry Operators, is mandated to be determined, for purposes of further promotion, with effect from the date on which the concerned incumbent was appointed on regular basis as such. It is not possible to conclude, that members of either of the two cadres (the erstwhile ministerial cadre, and the cadre of Data Entry Operators) can be treated to be superior to one or the other, on account of the pointed deficiency, highlighted by the learned counsel. It clearly emerges from the provisions relied upon, that consequent upon the completion of the process of computerization, in the Customs and Central Excise Department, the erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre needed to be trained in computer applications, and the erstwhile members of the cadre of Data Entry Operators required to be instructed in relevant procedures. Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of learned counsel, that either of the two cadres ought to be treated as superior to the other. The first contention, premised on Rule 4 of the TA Rules, 2003 and Rule 5 of the STA Rules, 2003, respectively, is devoid of any merit, and is accordingly hereby rejected. - The resultant inter se seniority between the posts at the initial constitution of the cadres under reference, was also based exclusively on the pay-scales of the posts sought to be merged. Cadre of Data Entry Operators, was created out of the original ministerial cadre. It is, therefore apparent, that the members of the two cadres were originally discharging similar duties. It is only as a consequence of the administrative decision to computerize the functioning of the Customs and Central Excise Department, that a separate cadre of Data Entry Operators came to be created. The newly created cadre, exclusively functioned towards giving effect to the decision to computerize the functioning of the department. There was thereafter a division of duties discharged by the original members of the ministerial cadre. One cadre of employees exclusively thereafter discharged procedural duties of the department, whereas, the other cadre of employees exclusively thereafter discharged duties aimed at computerization of the functioning of the department. Merger of the cadres, and the determination of the inter se seniority on merger, were justifiably determined, on the basis of the different pay-scales of the cadres merged, under the TA Rules, 2003 and the STA Rules, 2003. By the mandate of the above Rules, all posts in equivalent pay-scales were placed at the same level. Posts in the higher scale of pay, were given superiority on the subject of inter se seniority, with reference to posts in the lower scale of pay. In our considered view, the above determination, at the hands of the rule framing authority, on the issue canvassed before us, cannot be termed either arbitrary or discriminatory. We are, therefore satisfied in concluding, that the provisions of Rule 4 of the TA Rules, 2003 and Rule 5 of the STA Rules, 2003, cannot be faulted on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. - the different orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal, and the common order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the High Court, are liable to be set aside. The same are accordingly hereby set aside. The appeals filed by those who moved to the cadre of Data Entry Operators from the ministerial cadre, and were thereupon amalgamated in the cadre of Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants, are allowed - Decided in favour of appellants.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seniority dispute among employees of the Customs and Central Excise Department.
2. Bifurcation and re-amalgamation of cadres.
3. Impact of the Fourth Central Pay Commission's recommendations.
4. Creation and promotion within the cadre of Data Entry Operators.
5. Initial constitution of the cadre of Tax Assistants and Senior Tax Assistants.
6. Challenge to the rules by erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre.
7. Evaluation of seniority principles based on the Om Prakash Sharma case.
8. Legal principles regarding changes in chances of promotion.
9. Validity of the inter-se seniority determined under the TA Rules, 2003 and STA Rules, 2003.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority Dispute Among Employees of the Customs and Central Excise Department:
The core issue revolves around the seniority dispute that arose due to the bifurcation and subsequent re-amalgamation of cadres within the Customs and Central Excise Department. Initially, a separate cadre for electronic data processing was created, which later merged back into the ministerial cadre, causing shifts in seniority.

2. Bifurcation and Re-amalgamation of Cadres:
The bifurcation was necessitated by the department's decision to introduce computerization. This led to the creation of a separate cadre for data entry operators, which later merged back into the ministerial cadre. The re-amalgamation resulted in career advancements for those who moved to the data entry cadre, causing seniority shifts.

3. Impact of the Fourth Central Pay Commission's Recommendations:
The Fourth Central Pay Commission recommended rationalizing pay scales for data entry-related posts. Consequently, the Government introduced uniform pay scales and designations for electronic data processing posts, leading to the creation of a distinct cadre of Data Entry Operators with specific grades and pay scales.

4. Creation and Promotion Within the Cadre of Data Entry Operators:
The 1992 Rules framed by the President of India established a four-level cadre for Data Entry Operators. Promotions within this cadre were strictly regulated, and members were not eligible for promotion to ministerial or executive cadre posts. This created a distinct separation from the original ministerial cadre.

5. Initial Constitution of the Cadre of Tax Assistants and Senior Tax Assistants:
The TA Rules, 2003, and STA Rules, 2003, were framed to merge the ministerial cadre and the cadre of Data Entry Operators into new cadres of Tax Assistants and Senior Tax Assistants. The rules provided for the initial constitution and determined inter-se seniority based on the date of regular appointment and pay scales.

6. Challenge to the Rules by Erstwhile Members of the Ministerial Cadre:
The erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre challenged the rules, claiming that the bifurcation and re-amalgamation adversely affected their seniority. They sought restoration of their original seniority positions, arguing that the process was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

7. Evaluation of Seniority Principles Based on the Om Prakash Sharma Case:
The Administrative Tribunal and the High Court relied on the Om Prakash Sharma case to determine the seniority dispute. However, the Supreme Court found that the factual scenario in the present case was not akin to the Om Prakash Sharma case. The creation of the Data Entry Operators cadre was not a mere bifurcation but involved distinct posts with different duties and responsibilities.

8. Legal Principles Regarding Changes in Chances of Promotion:
The Supreme Court reiterated that chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of service. Changes in promotion chances, unless arbitrary, perverse, or mala fide, do not warrant judicial interference. The High Court erred in concluding that the rules were discriminatory based on the impact on promotion chances.

9. Validity of the Inter-se Seniority Determined Under the TA Rules, 2003 and STA Rules, 2003:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the inter-se seniority determined under the TA Rules, 2003, and STA Rules, 2003. The rules were found to be neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The determination based on pay scales was justified, considering the similar nature of duties and responsibilities post-merger.

Conclusion:
The orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court were set aside. The appeals filed by those who moved to the cadre of Data Entry Operators and were amalgamated into the cadre of Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants were allowed. The authorities were directed to give effect to the TA Rules, 2003, and STA Rules, 2003, without further delay.