ATMADEO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner entered the railway service as a clerk on June 10, 1941 in the office of the Chief Traffic Manager of the erstwhile Jodhpur State Railway. On integration of the railway system he was continued to be employed as a clerk in the Northern Railway and was subsequently promoted as a Head clerk. By an order issued on September 20, 1977 the railway authorities informed the petitioner that he would retire from railway service with effect from June 1, 1974 on attaining the age of 58 years, in terms of Rule 2046 (b) of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume II.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 2046 (b) of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume II on the ground that it was discriminatory and was violative of the guarantee of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it makes an unreasonable classification between ministerial servants of the railway appointed upto March 31, 1938 and those appointed thereafter. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Railway Board vs. A. Pitchumani (1 ). in Pitchumani's case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court had struck down the note appended to Rule 2046 (2) (a), wherein a distinction was made between employees of ex-State Railways and other railway employees. Ex-State Railway employees were excluded from the benefit of Rule 2046 (2) (a) and even though they might have entered into the service of ex-State Railways before April 1, 1938, they were treated as if they had entered into railway service on or after April 1, 1950. THEir Lordships observed that once a railway employee came under a particular category of service under Indian Railways then the rule must be applied uniformly to all members of the Indian Railway Service and no distinction could be made on the basis of the source from which they came, Thier Lordships observed that the object of Rule 2046 was to provide for the age of retirement of two types of employees coming under clauses (a) and (b) thereof and there was no indication that any further distinction inter-se could be made amongst the employees mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b), when a uniform age of retirement has been fixed in respect of the employees coming under each one of the aforesaid two clauses. Classification carving out employees of the Ex-State Railways from other Railway employees was struck down as it had no nexus or relation to the object of rule 2046. THEir Lordships in that case recognised the fact that there was a distinction between ministerial railway servants who entered into railway service on or before March 31, 1938 and those were employed on or after April 9, 1938 and it was observed as under:- "the distinction made in cl. (b) regarding the ministerial railway servants who entered government service on or before March 31, 1938 is again of uniform application. That rule only makes a broad distinction between the minis erial railway servants who entered government service on or before March 31, 1938 and who entered government service after that date. "

(3.) THE writ petition has no force and is dismissed. .