Holding

The Court held that the South Eastern Railway had a separate ASM/SM cadre before 1983, so the application of alternative ‘I’ was a deviation, and the 204 SMs who had exercised options before 1983 must be granted the promotional benefits as if the option had not been abolished.

Summary

The case concerned Station Masters (SMs) of the South Eastern Railway who claimed that the 1984 restructuring scheme, which applied alternative ‘I’ intended for a combined ASM/SM cadre, was wrongly applied to their zone where the cadre was separate prior to 1983. The appellants argued that the Chief Personnel Officer’s decision deprived SMs who had exercised promotional options before 1983 of the benefits they were entitled to, and that under alternative ‘I’ they should have been automatically redesignated as Deputy Station Superintendents without undergoing selection. The Court examined correspondence and letters showing that the option to move from ASM to SM was mandatory at appointment and that the cadre was indeed separate before 1983. It held that applying alternative ‘I’ was a deviation from the scheme and that the 204 SMs who had exercised options before 1983 must receive the promotional benefits as if the option had not been abolished. The Court directed the respondents to grant those benefits, not disturb already promoted employees, and create any additional posts needed within six months.

Issues considered

Whether the ASM/SM cadre in South Eastern Railway prior to 1983 was a combined cadre or a separate cadre for the purpose of applying the restructuring scheme.
Whether the Chief Personnel Officer’s application of alternative ‘I’ to a zone with a separate cadre violated the scheme and prejudiced SMs who had exercised promotional options before 1983.
Whether SMs who exercised options before 1983 are entitled to automatic redesignation as Deputy Station Superintendents without selection under alternative ‘I’.

Subjects

Railway personnelcadre restructuringpromotional optionscombined cadreseparate cadreadministrative lawservice lawequitable reliefCentral Administrative TribunalSupreme Court

Judgment

S.B. SARKAR AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
)

APRIL 30, 1990

[RANGANATH MISRA AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] B

Civil Services: Railways"'-South Eastem--Cadre of ASM/SM--
Restructuring of-Existence of separate cadresvrwr to 1983 and change
over to combined system-Not the same thing-Authorities to grant
promotional benefits to SMs who exercised option prior to 1983.
c
~
In the South-Eastern Railway the cadre initially comprised of
- I Assistant Station Masters at the bottom and the Station Masters at the
top. Initial appointment of ASM was malle in the scale of Rs.360-540.
The promotional ladder bifurcated into: (i) ASM to SM, and (ii) ASM to
·.-.< SM, both in the scale of Rs.425-640 \DOn-selection), and then Rs.455-
700 (selection); before becoming one common source for promotion to D
Deputy Station Superintendent/SM Rs.550-750 (non-selection) Rs. 700-
800 Station Superintendent (selection), and Rs.840-1010 Station
Superintendent (non-selection). For movirg up the promotional ladder
every ASM was required to opt if he would proceed on the channel of
ASM to ASM, or ASM to SM.
E
Later, re-structuring was done in •c• and 'D' cadres in the scales,
designation and percentage; in selection and non-selection posts. Two
alternatives were framed described as alternative 'I' for the combined
cadre, and alternative 'II' for the separate cadres; which were to be

- adopted by the respective zones depending on the prevailing cadre
pattern. For ASM/SM two alternatives were provided to be adopted. by
the respective zones depending on whether the existing cadre was sepa-
F

rate or combined. In alternative 'I' meant for the combined cadre SMs
in the scale of Rs.425-640 and Rs.455-700 were designated as Deputy
Station Superintendents and Station Superintendents in the scale of
Rs.540-750 and Rs. 700-900 respectively.
G
Pursuant to the re-structuring, the Chief Personal Officer issued a
letter to the Divisional Manager, South Eastern Railway that it has been
decided that alternative 'I' enunciated by the Board shall be followed on
the said railway, and the existing system of calling for options from
A~Ms for the post of SMs/ASMs in the higher grade was being
dispensed with seniority of staff lfi eacll grade· snalfbe de~r_mined on

813
•
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A the basis of non-fortutions service rendered in such grade.

Since the aforesaid direction of the Chief Personnel Officer
worked to the prejudice of numerous persons who had exercised their
options to the promotional channel of Station Master, they approached
the High Court ffrihunal by way of writ petitions /claim petitions but
B without any success.

Some of these disputes came up in appeal before this Court which
were disposed of on July 30, 1987 by directing the Railway Board to
c1msider if the Chief Personnel Officer while implementing its scheme
deviated from its terms, and implemented it to the prejudice of those
C appellants.
-
The appellants-Station Masters of South/Eastern Railway aggrie-
ved by the implementation of the scheme of re-structuring by the Chief
Personnel Officer approached the Central Administrative Tribunal,
which rejected their claim; as the implementation was beneficial to the
D majority, and further found that the alternative 'I' of the scheme meant for
the combined cadre was rightly adopted as the cadre of Assistant
Station Masters and Station Masters in the South-Eastern Zone was
combined before 1983.

The appellants in their appeal to this Court challenged the cor-
E rectness of the aforesaid findings and also claimed that the implementa-
tion of the scheme was highly unjust and inequitable. It was claimed
that if alternative 'I' was adopted then it should have been given full
play and the SMs should have been placed en bloc in the re-designated
posts without any further process of selection.

F Disposing of the appeal by directing that the respondents shall
grant promotional benefit to those 204 SMs who have exercised option
before 1983, this Conrt,

HELD: 1. It is not disputed that in the South Eastern Zone the
practice of obtaining option by ASM for promotional channel was in
G vogue before 1983. The dispute was about the time when it was exer-
cised. According to the appellant it was at the time of recruitment and
appointment even on pain of disciplinary action whereas according to
the officials it used to he offered when vacancy arose according to
seniority. Unfortunately, it was accepted by the Tribunal as well with-
out any foundation in the record by shutting its eyes to the.letters dated
H 14th May, 1965 and 20th May, 1970, issued by the Divisional
S.B. SARKAR v. '.J.O.l. 815

Superintendent whic_h shows that options were required to be exer- P.
I cised by ASMs irrespective of availability of vacancy before the
---- -- target date, and if it was not exercised then they were liable tti
disciplinary action. [818F-H; 819A]

2. Even the claim of the Administration that cadre of ASM/SM
B
was combined cadre in South East Railway was not substantiated by
any document, letter or order. On the other hand, the letter dated 10th
...,..~· May, 1984 issued by Additional District Pay Commissioner to the
General Manager recognises existence of separate cadre. [819F]

3. Existence of separate cadres prior to 1983 and changing over
to a combined system is not the same thing as claiming that the cadre c
which existed prior to 1983 was a combined cadre. [820C]

4. Since the cadre in South Eastern Railway was a separate one,
the Chief Personnel Officer deviated from the scheme by applying
alternative 'I' which was to be adopted by a zone where combined cadre
D
existed and if alternative 'I' was adopted then the SMs should have been
automatically designated as Oeputy Station Superintendents and they
should not have been_ subjected to the selection procedure. 1n alternative
'I' SM in scale of Rs.425-640 automatically stood redesignated as
Deputy Station Superintendents. But the scale does uot find place in
( alternative II. But both the employees uuious have accepted the
implementation of the letter of the Chief Personnel Officer as it is E
beneficial to a majority of the employees. Therefore, it may not be
disturbed. At the same time all those 204 employees who had opted
before 1983 most be entitled to the benefit which would have been
available to them on their options. [820F-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2054 F
of 1990.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.1987 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in Transfer Application No. 1263 of
1986.
G
A.P. Chatterjee, G.S. Chatterjee (NP) and Ms. Raina Bhatta-
charya for the Appellants.
>-
R.B. Dattar (NP), Anil Dev Singh, B.K. Prasad, C.V. Subba
Rao and R.B. Misra for the Respondents.
H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A. Bhattacharya for the Intervener.
A \
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
- _,__
\

R.M. SABAi, J. Special leave granted.

B Station Masters of South Eastern Railways are aggrieved by
implementation of the scheme of re-structuring by the Chief Personnel
Officer framed by the Railway Board for 'C' and 'D' cadre. Their
claim was not accepted by the Central Administrative Tribunal as
implementation as such, was beneficial to the majority. It was further
found that alternative 'I' of the scheme meant for the combined cadre
C was rightly adopted as the cadre of Assistant Station Master (ASM)
and Station Master (SM) in the South Eastern Zone was combined
-
before 1983. The appellants have challenged correctness of these find-
ings. They also claim that implementation of scheme is highly unjust
and inequitable.

D Prior to re-structuring the cadre comprised of Assistant Station
Masters at the bottom and Station Superintendent at the top. Initial
appointment of ASM was made in the scale of Rs.360-540. The promo-
tional ladder bifurcated into (i) ASM to ASM and (ii) ASM to SM,
both in the scale of Rs.425-640 (non-selection) and then Rs.455-700
(selection) before becoming one common source for promotion to
E Deputy Station Superintendent/SM Rs.550-750 (non-selection)
Rs. 700-800 Station Superintendent (selection) and Rs.840-1010
Station Superintendent (non-selection). For moving up the promo-
tional ladder every ASM was required to opt if he would proceed on
the channel of ASM to ASM or ASM to SM. Re-structuring was done
in 'C' and 'D' cadres in the scales, designation and percentage in
-
F selection and non-selection posts. Two alternatives were framed
described as alternative 'I' for the combined cadre and alternative 'II'
for the separate cadres. They were to be adopted by the respective
zones depending on the cadre pattern prevalent there.

One of the principles visualised for group 'C' was that if all posts
G in an existing grade were en bloc placed in a higher grade the existing
regular incumbents thereof were to be allowed the higher grade with-
out subjecting them to any selection. For ASM/SM two alternatives
were provided to be adopted by the respective zones depending on
whether the existing cadre was separate or combined. In alternat:ve 'I'
meant for the combined cadre SMs in the scale of Rs.425-640 and
H Rs.455-700 were desil!flated as Deputy Station Superintendents and
S.B. SARKAR v. U.0.1. [SAHA!, J.) 817

1 Station Superintendents in the scale of Rs.550-750 and Rs. 700-900
A
respectively. Therefore, the appellants claim that if alternative 'I' was
. . . . adopted, then it should have been given full play and the SMs who
were working in the aforesaid scales should also have been placed en
bloc in the re-designated posts without any further process of
selection.
B
In pursuance of the re-structuring, the Chief. Personnel Officer
issued a letter to the Divisional Manager, South Eastern Railway that
it had beeµ decided that alternative 'I' enuliciafod by"tHe Board shall
bi}j'~Jlo...,ed;on the South Eastern Railway. It further provided that the
·existing sy!ifefu of calling for options from ASMs for the post of SMs/
ASMs in the higher grade was being dispensed with and seniority of
staff in each grade shall be determined on the basis of non-fortuitous c
service rendered in such grade. Other paragraphs of the letter are not
relevant for the resolution of the present controversy. Since the direc-
tion of the Chief Personnel Officer worked to prejudice of numerous
persons who had exercised their options to the promotional channel of
Station Master, they approached the High Court or Tribunal by way of n
Writ Petition or Claim Petition but without any success. Some of such
disputes came up for disposal before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
1536-41 of 1987 which were disposed of by order dated 30th July, 1987,
directing the Railway Board to consider if the Chief Personnel Officer
while implementing the scheme deviated from its terms and
implemented it to the prejudice of those appellants. Since it was con- E
ceded that the scheme did not affect present status and emoluments,
this Court then made it clear that implementation should not be done
to prejudice of appellants. It further protected the interests of those
who due to wrong implementation might have got benefit by directing
that they shall not be disturbed. The direction given by this Court was
not complied with; therefore, contempt proceedings were filed the F
hearing of which was deferred till the disposal of the present appeals.

When these appeals were taken up for hearing, it transpired that
total number of employees of the appellants' category were not more
than 206. Therefore, the Court passed the order on 26th Jilly, 1989 that
1f relief was granted to these 206 employees_ by implementing the G
scheme in the manner indicated in the earlier order of 1987, they shall
)·---
be satisfied and the litigation shall come to an end. But nothing more
was done and on 8th September, 1989 this Court after hearing learned
counsel for the parties at great length recorded that two questions
were required to be looked into: (i) if the cadre of ASM and SM was
common or different and (ii) if alternative 'I' was adopted, then why H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 19901 2 S.C.R.

the SMs could not be, re-designated and Deputy Station Superinten- · ' \
A
dents and wanted resp~nse of the Administration about them. On both .
these aspects an affidavit was filed by the Chief Personnel Officer. . .
Regarding the first, it is stated that cadre of ASM and SM before '
restructuring was a· common one in South Eastern Railway for all ·
'intents and purposes'. It is explained that separate cadre meant that
B the AS Ms and SMs would have sought their advancement separately,
'in a way different from them in the entire non-gazetted cadre'. And
then ASM and SM had to combine again to work as Deputy,Station T
Superintendent/SM. In respect of automatic re-designation, the expla-
nation is that eight different scales of pay existing before re-structuring
were reduced to six and designation of ASM in the scale of Rs.455-700
and SM in scale of Rs.425-64-0; were abolished and the post belonging
c to six revised designations have been distributed on the prescribed
percentage basis. It is further stated that incumbents of the existing
grades were promoted according to their positions of seniority against
the posts which were available on percentage basis distribution. There-
fore, the contention of the petitioners that the Station Masters should
D be automatically designated as Deputy Station Superintendent was not
correct. According to the Chief Personnel Officer the appellants along
with' others in accordance with their seniority were required to be
subjected t.o the procedure of selection/suitability test as per proce-
dure envisaged in the re-structuring scheme. The affidavit also
attaches a letter from the Railway Board addressed to the General ':..,
E Manager, reiterating that the implementation of the scheme by the
Chief Personnel Officer was as intended by the Board.

Facts as they ultimately emerge do not appear to have been
adequately indicated in the affidavit of the senior officer even when
the aspects were pointedly indicated by this Court. It is not disputed
F that in the South Eastern Zone the practice of option by ASM for
promotional channel was in vogue before 1983. Dispute is about the
time when it was exercised. According to appellant it was at the time of
recruitment and appointment even on pain of disciplinary action. And
option once exercised was irrevocable. Whereas according to officials
it used to be offered when vacancy arose according to seniority.
G Unfortunatelv it was accepted by the Tribunal as well without any
foundation in the record by shutting its eyes to various letters which
clinch the issue in favour of the appellants, for instance the letter dated
14th May, 1965, and 20th May, 1970, issued by the Divisional
Superintendent Railway filed before Tribunal, produced along with
supplementary affidavit shows that options were required to be exer-
H cised by ASMs irrespective of availability of vacancy before the target
S.S. SARKAR ·,.. U.O.I. ISAHAI, J .I · 819

date and if it was not exercised then they were liable to disciplinary A
., / action.· And options, for or against could not be changed when once
~ --·exercised. Where it was not exercised on or before the date it was
deemed to have been opted for ASM to SM. No effort was made to
meet these letters; yet an affidavit was filed that option was exercised
when vacancy arose.
B
,. Options was thus exercised by appellants at the stage of apf,oint-
- ~ ment and recruitment. But it appears to have resulted in dissatisfaction
because even thougb the pay scales were identical those who became
SM were entrusted with supervisory control. and administrative
-_(., · responsibility. For this the ASM recruited in the same batch must have
been unhappy. And the SM must, also, have had the grievance as
promotion in higber scale was obviously delayed because the post of c
SM must have been fewer in number as compared to ASM. Therefore,
-...,...r it was rightly abolished and was hailed by the two unions of employees.
But what happened to those.wl:o due to irrevocable option exercised
prior to 1983 had been waiting for moving up and due to abolition of
option and implementation of the alternative 'I' lost the opportunity D
while ASMs junior to them availed it? No provision for them was
made. Even in this Court despite repeated directions, the Chief.
Personnel Officer or the Administration instead of resolving it have

r taken an uncharitable stand by asserting that those who opted for
promotional channel of SM having enjoyed benefit of day duty and
supervisory control on their own volition cannot be compared with E
ASMs whose working conditions were different. That is a person who
worked "with greater responsibility, and under strain must suffer. What
is surprising is that such unreasonable stand is supported even by the
Board by relying on 'intents and contents'.

Even the claim of the Administration that cadre of ASM/SM was F
combined cadre in South East Railway was not substantiated by any
document, letter or order. On the other hand, from letter dated 10th
May, 1984 issued by Additional District Pay Commissioner to General
Manager recognises existence of separate cadre:

"It is evident from the details furnished in the enclosure to G
your above quoted letter that your Railway had a separate
cadre for ASMs/SMs and a decision had-been reached prior
to the issue of the restructuring orders No. PC. IIl/80/
UPG/19 dated 29.7.83 to switch over to a combined cadre,
except where in respect of any cadre or cadres avenues of
advancement have been prescribed by this Ministry, laying H
820 · surfiEM!l coiiifr RllroRTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A \ down avenues of promotion in respect of non-gazetted \
Railway staff, is within the competence of the Genenl ___::,_
Managers of the zonal railways. Since the matter has been
processed on your railway in consultation and agreement of
the two recognised Trade Unions in the permanent Nego-
tiating Machinery, the action by your Railway to switch
B. over to a combined percentages scheme is within( your
powers." ·

Existence of separate cadres prior to 1983 and changing over to a
cpmbined system is not the same thing as claiming that the cadre which
existed prior to 1983 was a combined cadre. Explanation in the
affidavit while replying to the issue as to whether the cadre of ASM
c and SM was common or a different cadre is given thus: ·

"The Railway Board's letter dated 10.8.84 refers to only
merging these two grades which should not mean that the
cadre was separate. In other words, the Railway Board's
said letter means that the action of the Railway to combine
the two grades also is in order and it does not imply that the
entire cadre was separate.~'

It cannot be accepted either as correct or satisfactory. Cadres of
ASM/SM before 1983 was separate and different. With abolition of )..;,
E option it has become one. The letter of the Railway Board required
revised percentages prescribed for the category depending on whether
the existing cadre structure was a combined one or a structured one.
Since the cadre in South Eastern Railway was a separate one, the
Chief Peisonnel Officer deviated from the scheme by applying alterna-
tive 'I' which ·was to be adopted by a zone where combined cadre _j__
·F existed.And if alternative 'I' was adopted then the SMs should have
been automatically designated as Deputy Station Superintendents and -f
they should not have been subjected. to the selection procedure.The
explanation in the affidavit of Chief Personnel Officer that the grade
of Rs.425-640 having been abolished as a consequence of restructuring
is not acceptable. In alternative 'I' SM in scale of Rs.425-640 automati-
G cally stood redesignated as Deputy Station Superintendent. But.the
scale does not find place in alternative 'II'. But both the employees
unions have accepted the implementation of the letter of Chief Person- _,..;
nel Officer as it is beneficial to a majority of the employees. There- - . •·
fore, .it may· not be disturbed. At the same time all those 204
empfoyees who had opted before 1983. must be entitled to the benefit
H wh~ch.would have been available to_tli~m on their options.
. S.B. SARKAR v. U.0.I. [SAHA!, J.] 821

/ In the result this appeal is disposed of by directing that the A
_->- _ respondent authorities shall grant promotional benefit to those 204
SMs who had exercised options before 1983 in tbe same manner as it
~qµld have been if option had not been abolished in accordance with
the earlier procedure provided they fulfilled the othet requirements.
While doing so those who had been promoted shall not be disturbed as
directed by this Court on 30th July, 1987. Further if as a result ofthis B
~ exercise posts in higher grade fall short, the respondents shall create
'T adequate number of additional posts to overcome the difficulty .. The
respondents are further directed to complete all this exercise within six
months. Persons pr9moted in pursuance of this order shall be entitled
~ to all consequential benefits from the due dates. Appellants shall be
• entitled to consolidated costs which are assessed at Rs.5,000 to be c
payable by respondent No. 2.

T ' N.V.K. Appeal disposed of.