- (1.) THE petitioners D. N. V, Chellam, K. N. Ganesh Kumar and K. K. Maniar in this writ petition under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order (Annexure 3), dated September 17. 1969, passed by the Railway Board, op posite party No. 1 and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Railway Board, Director General, Research, Desi gns and Standards Organization (herein after referred to as the RDSO), opposite party No. 2, and the Assistant Accounts Officer, R. D. S. O., opposite party No. 3.not to withdraw the special pay of Rupees 150/- admissible to them.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition may now be narrated. Petitioner No. 1 (D. N. V. Chellam) was initially ap pointed as Senior Draughtsman, a class Ill-post in the Mechanical Research Branch of the erstwhile Central Standards Office (now the RDSO) on 25-8-1949 and was eventually promoted as a Sectional Officer on January 19, 1949 and confirm ed as such on March 3, 1966. The peti tioner No. 2 (K. N. Ganesh Kumar) was appointed as Design Assistant A, a class III post in the Central Standards Office (now the RDSO) on March 7, 1957 and was in due course promoted as a Sectional Officer on February 19, 1961. The peti tioner No. 3 (K. K. Maniar) entered ser vice as an apprentice Train Examiner on January 11, 1957 but was seconded as Design Assistant B, a class III post in the R. D. S. O., on December 16, 1963 and in due course was promoted as a Sectional Officer on May 14, 1968. The post of a Sectional Officer is a gazetted Class II post. The prescrib ed Class II scale of pay for Sectional Offi cers was Rs. 275-25-500-EB-30-650-EB-30 800 plus a special pay of Rs. 150/-. This pay scale was substituted by the Railway Services (Authorised Pay) Rules, 1960 which came into force on July 1, 1959. The first two petitioners belonged to the R. D. S. O. as such, while the third peti tioner belonged to the Railway Services but was seconded to the R. D. S. O. They opted or be deemed to have opted the Au thorised Scales of Pay from July 1, 1959. The authorised pay scale for a Sectional Officer is Rs. 350- 25-500-30-590 EB 30-800 EB-830-35-900 plus a special pay of Rupees 150/-. Petitioner No. 1 was drawing the maximum of the scale, that is to say, Rs. 900/- plus a special pay of Rs. 150/-petitioner No. 2 was drawing Rs. 770/-plus special pay of Rs. 150/- and petitioner No. 3 was drawing Rs. 560 plus Rs. 150/-on the date of the impugned order. The Railway Board appointed a committee to go into the question of continuance or the withdrawal of special pays to officers serving in the R. D. S. O. This committee submitted a report and on its basis, the Board passed the impugned order. (Annex-ure 3) on September 17, 1969 under which the special pay of Rs. 150/- admissible earlier to a Sectional Officer was with drawn though it was continued in respect of certain other Sectional Officers. Upon the receipt of that order, oppo site party No. 2, circulated a notice (An-nexure 2) on October 4, 1969 to all Sec tional Officers informing them that spe cial pay would be withdrawn with effect from September 1, 1969 and their indivi dual pays will be refixed. The petitioners pray for the issue of above writs on the following grounds:- (1) That their drawal of the special pay of Rs. 150/- per month was part and parcel of the Authorised Scale of Pay and the Railway Board had no authority to withdraw that scale of pay, including the special pay. (2) That in case the Railway Board desired to withdraw the special pay. They (the petitioners) should have been given an opportunity to be heard and to repre sent their point of view, and in not af fording that opportunity, the Board had violated the principles of natural iustice. (3) That by the impugned order, the Board had made a discrimination in two respects, namely, between the Sectional Officers, on the one hand, and some other officers, on the other hand, inasmuch as while special pay had been withdrawn from them, it was continued to those others, and secondly, there was a dis crimination between the Sectional Offi cers inter se inasmuch as while it was continued in respect of some of them, it was withdrawn from other Sectional Officers including the petitioners, and (4) If the Board intended to make a classification between Sectional Offi cers and other officers, or between Sec tional Officers inter se, that classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitu tion because there is no intelligible dif ferentia in the classification as such and there is no reasonable nexus between one group and the other on the ground that the arduous nature of duties, the ele ment of special responsibility, and the nature of their avocation is the same.
(3.) NO other point was pressed in the writ petition, although several others were taken.;