Holding

The Supreme Court overruled the Thakur judgment, held that experience‑based classification is reasonable under Article 14, and dismissed the petition while directing an increase of the Grade‑I "highly skilled" cadre to 33⅓ %.

Summary

The petitioners, a group of government compositors, sought to be placed in the "highly skilled" Grade‑I category with backdated benefits, relying on a Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in T.R. Thakur’s case that had held seniority‑based classification unreasonable. The Supreme Court examined whether that High Court judgment could be applied to all compositors and whether a classification based solely on seniority violated Article 14. It overruled the Thakur judgment, holding that experience and length of service constitute a reasonable basis for classification and that the earlier decision did not lay down correct law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the Court directed the government to increase the proportion of Grade‑I "highly skilled" compositors to 33⅓ % from 1 April 1992. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment in T.R. Thakur’s case is operable as a precedent for all compositors across India.
Whether classification of compositors into "highly skilled" and "skilled" solely on seniority violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed on the basis of the Thakur judgment.
Whether the ratio between Grade‑I and Grade‑II compositors should be altered.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 32

Subjects

Article 14ClassificationSeniorityExperienceCivil ServicePromotionHighly skilledCompositorsRatioDiscriminationWrit petitionSupreme Court

Judgment

A JAGHNATH
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

NOVEMBER 1,1991

B [RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., M.H.KANIA
AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.]
•
Civil· Service--Compositors in printing presses-Promotion
--Categorisation of "highly skilled" and "skilled"-Seniority basis-Validity
of
c
Civil Service-Compositors in printing presses--Promotion --Stag-
nation between cadres-Removal of-Ratio prescribed.

Petitioner claiming that he and other similarly placed Com-
positors working in the Government of India presses all over India
D
were entitled to the status and salary of Compositors, Grade I in the,
"highly skilled" category with effect from January 1, 1966 on the
ground that the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in
Thakur 's case was applicable in principle to all the Compositors,
filed the present petition under Article 32 of the C,onstitution.
E
The High Court in Thakur's case held that the categorisation
as "highly skilled" and "skilled" on the basis of seniority alone was
unreasonabl~ and discriminatory. As no special leave petition against
the judgment of the High Court was brought to this Court the judg-
ment became final.
F
Over-ruling Thakur's case_and~ismlssing the-petitiOn this Court,

HELD : l.Academic pursuit and experience are two primary

G
sources of learning. A Compositor's job in a printing press is a
skilled job requiring special technique. In such a job it would be
reasonabie to measure the standards of skill by length of experi-
,..
ence. The High Court fell into error in quashing the classification
based on experience arising out of length of service. [157 BJ

2. "Highly skilled" category was created to handle the nature
of work which involved higher skill than the original hand composi-
H tion. The Compositors with longer service and who were found fit

152
I
JAGHNATH v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 153

for promotion were appointed to Grade I and were categorised as A
"highly skilled". Experience itself is merit and can be a valid basis
for classification. [157 C-DJ

3. Keeping in view the large number of Compositors all over
the country and to remove stagnation the ratio between the two
cadres should be 33 1/ 3 : 66 2/ 3 %. [158 DJ B

4. The respondents are directed to increase the strength of
· the cadre of Compositor Grade-I 'highly skilled' to 331/ 3 percent
with effect from April 1, 1992. [158 DJ

Thakur's Case (Writ petition C.W. N?. 61/69) dated 21.5.1971; C
overruled.

State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, [1989J 1 S.C.C. 121 ; referred to.

EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil No. 651
of 1986. D

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia).

P.P. Rao, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Vandana Saggar and Ms. Monika
Mobil for the Petitioners.
E
V.C. Mahajan, K. Swamy, Ms. A. Subhasbini and Ms. Niranjana
Singh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. This petition under Article 32 of the Costitution F
bas been filed by Prahalad Singh claiming that be and other similarly
placed Compositors working in the Government of India Presses all over
India are entitled to the status and salary of Compositors, Grade I in the
"highly skilled" category with effect from January 1, 1966. The said relief
is claimed on the sole ground that one T.R. Thakur bas already been given
Grade I in the "highly skilled" category as a result of the judgment in his G
favour given by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The writ petition
(C.W. 61/69) filed by T.R. Thakur was allowed by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court on May 21, 1971 and Letters Patent Appeal against
the said judgment was dismissed on May 9, 1979. The High Court held
that the categorisation as "highly skilled" and "skilled" on the basis of
seniority alone was unreasonable and discriminatory. No special leave H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A petition against the judgment of the High Court was brought to this Court
and as such tbejudgment has become final.
Prahalad Singh and others have claimed that they are entitled to the
benefit of the judgment given by the High Court in Thakur's case. Ac-
cording to them the said judgment is applicable in principle to all the
B Compositors whether they were parties before the High Court or not. This
petition came for hearing before a Bench of this Court consisting of R.S.
Pathak, en, M.N. Venkatachalia, J. The Bench in its order dated April 28,
1989 observed as under:-

"The principal objection to the grant of relief to the Petitioner
c and those for whom he claims to act is the gross delay with
which the writ petition appears to have been bought in this
Court. To surmount that difficulty the petitioner relies upon
the plea that the judgment of the High Court in T.R. Thakur's
case is a judgment operative in principle in favour of all com-
positors situated in the circumstances in which T.R. Thakur
D found himself. There are other pleas which have been taken by
the petitioner, but the substantial one is whether he arid the
other compositors can enforce in their favour the benefit granted
in T.R. Thakur's case although they were not parties to that
proceeding. At first blush it would seem that the High Court
considered the particular facts of T.R. Thakur, the petitioner
E before it, and while granting relief it appears, in terms, to have
confined it to T.R. Thakur. It is an important point whether, as
the petitioner now contends before us, the direction issued by
the High Court can be regarded as a direction operative in
respect of all compositors employed in the Government of
India Presses all over India. The point is important since the
F objection on the plea of laches seems to be a substantial one in
view of the several compositors who have over the years been
promoted to the category of "highly skilled" compositors, and
interfering with their status now could materially prejudice
them. At the same time, it cannot be doubted that there can be
cases where although the facts of a particular petitioner have
G been taken into consideration what the Court indents, when it
adjudicates on the claim, is to lay down the law to be applied
by the respondents to all similar situations. There are other
cases where relief may be granted or refused upon the consid-
eration of a question involved -the question being one which
affects several persons of the category to which the petitioner
H belongs - and the grant or refusal of the relief may turn on
JACJHNATH v. U.OJ. [KULDIP SINGH, J.) 155

the particular facts of that case. Various possible categories of A
cases can be conceived in this context. We think it desirable
that in cases such as this the Court should formulate a set of
appropriate guidelines indicating when directions rendered by
the Court in one particular case can be regarded as operative in
other cases. As the matter will be governed both by principle
and by the practice of the Court, it is appropriate that this case B
be referred to a larger Bench for consideration on this and the
other points arising in it."
This is how the writ petition has come before us for final hearing. It
is not necessary to go into the merits of the question po~d by the Two-·
Judges Bench of this court because we are of the view that the High Court
judgment in Thakur's case does not lay-down the correct law.
c
The facts which led to the filing of the writ petition by Thukur are
as under:

Prior to January 1, 1966, there was one grade of Compositors (Rs. D
110-Rs. 180) in the Government of India Presses. In the year 1963 a
committee called "The Committee for Categorisation of the Government
of India Press Workers" was constituted to review the classification of
posts of industrial workers in the Government of India printing presses.
The said Committee, inter a/ia, made the following recommendations : -
E
"There was an equally persistent and wide spread demand from
the workers that the category of Compositors should be treated
as highly skilled instead of skilled as at present. We have very
carefully examined this case as well and were unable to sub-
scribe to this demand. Hand composing in the Govt. of India
presses is essentially a skilled job. The Managers were, how-
F
ever, of the opinion that 10-15% of the Compositors are fre-
quently expected to handle composition work of mathematical
or scientific discourses. For this, a knowledge application of
diacritical marks superior and inferior letters/figures, scientific
signs/symbols etc. are essential. This work, admittedly, in-
volved much higher skill than originally hand composition. G
The Committee,therefore, recommend that a suitable percent-
age of compositors should be upgraded to the highly skilted
category with pay scale of Rs. 175- 205. This category should
be given an appropriate designation to distinguish it from the
ordinary grade of Compositors who should still be in the skilled
group." H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Accepting the abc•ve recommendations, the Government of India, by an
order dated March 14, 1966, divided the existing cadre of Compositors
into Compositors Grade-I (Rs. 150- Rs. 206) and Compositors Grade-II
(Rs. ll 0-180). It was further decided that the Compositors Grade-I would
be classified as "highly skilled" and Compositors Grade-II as "skilled".
The ratio of Grade-I to Grade-II was fixed as 20 : 80. The initial constitu-
B tfon of the cadre of Compositors Grade-I was done by appointing 20% of
the Compositors on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness but trade test was
made obligatory for future promotions to Grade-I.

While implementing the above said decision of the Government of
India, 18 Compositors who were senior to Thakur were given the pay
C scale of Compositor Grade-I. Thakur challenged the denial of higher pay
scale of Compositor Grade-I to him on the ground that he and the 18
Compositors who wen~ promoted were performing the same duties and
were holding similar posts which were inter-changeable. According to
him all of them were performing the duties of "highly skilled" Composi-
tors and as such the higher grade could not have been denied to him. The
D learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the categori-
sation of the senior-most persons as "highly skilled" was arbitrary and
discriminatory. The learned Judge issued the following directions:-

"In the light of the above I am of the view that the petitioner is
entitled to the relief prayed for and direction is issued to the
E respondents not to enforce the revised scale of pay in such a
manner as to subject the petitioner to a lower scale of pay than
the one allowed to the compositors who have been so fixed in
the scale laid down for the highly skill compositors."
The Letters Patent Appeal tiled by the Union of India against the
F judgment of the learned Single Judge. was dismissed by the Division Bench
of the High Court on the following reasoning:-

"The contention of the appellants, as raised by them in para-
graph 5 of their return, that by length of service a person
acquires more and more skill and, therefore, the test of senior-
G ity for the purpose of putting a person in the higher category of
Grade I was justified, not acceptable because it is very well-
known that a mere length of service does not always result in
more skill in the working of the person concerned. Seniority
would have of course relevance in a situation where two per-
sons having equal skill are to be considered. But unless such a
H situation arose it is very much evident that intial placing of the
JAGHNATH v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 157

present incumbents on the post of Compositor in the higher A
category of Grade I could not have been done in total disre-
gard of the degree of skill which each of these incumbents
possessed."
Academic pursuit and experience are two primary sources of learn-
ing. A Compositor's job in a printing press is a skilled job requiring B
special technique. In such a job it would be reasonable to measure the
standardS of skill by length of experience. The High Court, in our view,
fell into error in quashing the classification based on experience arising
out of length of service.

It is obvious from the recommendations of the Committee quoted
above that "highly skilled" category was created to handle the nature of C
work which involved higher skill than the original hand composition. The
Compositors with longer service and who were found fit for promotion
were appointed to Grade I and were categorised as "highly skilled". Expe-
rience itself is merit and can be a valid basis for classification. This Court
in State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasaia, [1989] l S.C.C. 121 has upheld the D
classification based on experience as reasonable classification. Jagannatha
(
Shetty, J. speaking for this Court observed:

"Article 14 permits reasonable classification founded on dif-
ferent bases. It is now. well established that the classification
can be based on some qualities or characteristics of persons E
grouped together and not in others who are left out. Those
qualities or characteristics must, of course, have a reasonable
relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters,
merit or experience could be the proper basis for classification
to promote efficiency in administration. He or she learns also
by experience as much as by other means. It cannot be denied F
that the quality of work performed by persons of longer expe-
rience is superior than the work of newcomers. Even in Randhir
Singh case, this principle has been recognised. 0. Chinnappa
Reddy, J. observed that the classification of officers into two
grades with different scales of pay based either on academic
qualification or experience or length of service is sustainable. G .
Apart from that, higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or result-
ant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is very com-
mon in career service. There is selection grade for District
Juc'fges. There is senior time scale in Indian Administrative
Service. There is supertime scale in other like services. The
entitlement to these higher pay scales depends upon seniority- H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] SUPP. 2· S.C.R.

A cum-nierit or merit-cum-seniority. The differentiation so made
in the same cadre will not amount to discrimination. The clas-
sification based on experience is a reasonable classification. It
has a rational nexus with the object thereof. To hold otherwise,
it would be detrimental to the interest of the service itself."
We, therefore, hold that the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High
B Court in T.R. Thakur's case does not lay-down correct law and is over-
ruled. The only ground on which this petition is based, having become
non-existent, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed by them
and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

We are, however, of the view that the cadre of Compositors Grade-I
c 'highly skilled' should be enlarged. The Compositors are persistently de-
manding the upgrading of the whole of the cadre. The "Committee" also
recommended that suitable percentage be upgraded. The Government cre-
ated the higher grade for 20% of them. Keeping in view the large number
of Compositors all over the country and to remove stagnation we are of
the opinion that the ratio between the two cadres should be 33 1/ 3 : 66 2/ 3 %.
D
We, therefore, commend to the respondents to increase the strength of the
cadre of Compositor Grade-I 'highly skilled' to 33'/3 per cent with effect
from April l, 1992.

The writ petitions is disposed of in. the above terms with no order as
E to costs.

V.P.R. Petition dismissed.

.
I