- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by B. L. Rastogi and 15 others. The petitioners were recruited as Ticket Collectors in the N. E. Railway in the grade of Rs. 110-180 and were confirmed in that post. They contend that thereafter they were promoted to the next promotion post of Travelling Ticket Examiner, of which the authorised scale of pay is Rs. 130-212. The post of Ticket Collector is an open line direct recruitment category, The direct recruitment category means and includes the posts of Booking Clerk, Trains Clerk, Guard, Assistant Station Master and Ticket Collector. In the Indian Railways in the ticket checking service there are two branches, i. e. Ticket Collectors group and Travelling Ticket Examiners group. Those serving in the Ticket checking service have the option either to elect to serve in the Ticket Collectors group or in the Travelling Ticket Examiners Group. If option is exercised by a Ticket Collector to serve in the Travelling Ticket Examiners group then for such a person the next promotion post is that of the Travelling Ticket Examiner, whereas for a Ticket Collector who opts to continue in the Ticket Collectors group the next promotion post is Passenger Guide which carries a pay scale of Rs. 110-200. As already stated, the pay scale of a Travelling Ticket Examiner (for the sake of brevity referred hereinafter as T.T.E.) is Rs. 130-212. The petitioners claim to have opted for the T, T. E. Group. It is their contention that before being promoted to the grade of T. T. E. a Ticket Collector who opts for the Travelling Ticket Examiners Group is promoted to an intermediate grade and posted as a Leave Reserve Ticket Collector (L. R. T. C). The petitioners further contend that the post of L. R. T. C. is a promotion post. They were appointed to the said post on various dates between June, 1969 & July, 1970 as detailed in para 9 of the writ petition. As L. R. T. C, so it is claimed, the petitioners have been discharging the duties and responsibilities of a T. T. E. but they are not eing paid salary according to the pay scale of Rs. 130-212 admissible to T. T. Es but according to the scale of Ticket Collectors, viz., Rs. 110-180. This, the petitioners contend, is discriminatory as in all other Railways except the N. E. Railway a Ticket Collector opting for the Travelling Ticket Examiners Group is posted as Leave Reserve Travelling Ticket Examiner and paid the pay and emoluments of a T. T. E. in the scale of Rs. 130-212. The petitioners claim to have made representations to the Railway Administration seeking fixation of their pay in the post of L. R. T. C. in the authorised scale of Rs. 130-212 but without avail.
(2.) The North Eastern Railway administration was divided into eight districts. On 25-2-1969 the Railway Board divided the N. E. Railway into four divisions, each Division consisting of two districts (An-nexure-5). In accordance with the order of the Railway Board as a consequence of fixing of Division a scheme for divisionalisation of the N. E. Railway was introduced and in order to implement divisionalisation the General Manager, N. E. Railway, drew up a scheme (vide Annexure-6). Under this scheme all the ministerial Class III and Class IV staff in the headquarter office other than those working in Stores, Accounts and Security Departments as well as ministerial staff working in specified district offices were given the option to indicate their choice for transfer and posting to various cadres in the Divisions. It provided that the transfer of staff outside the cadre in open line direct recruitment categories will be subject to their suitability and their qualifying at the end of training. By letter dated 9-1-1970 the General Manager clarified that the transfer of the ministerial staff in the open line direct recruitment categories in implemention of this scheme will be treated as transfer on administrative ground (vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition). The same was repeated in the General Manager's letter of 27-2-1971 (Annexure-9). By this letter and an earlier letter of 8th April, 1969 (Annexure-7) it was clarified by the General Manager that the seniority of the ministerial staff transferred to open line categories in identical grades shall not affect their seniority which shall be fixed according to the length of service in the grade. In other words, the seniority of such ministerial staff on their transfer to open line categories will be fixed in the grade of Ticket Collectors by counting their past service in the parent grade.
(3.) At the time of enforcement of this divisionalisation scheme opposite parties 5 to 9 and 11 to 19 were working as Clerks and C. M. Shukla, opposite party No. 10 was working in the Accounts Department. All of them opted for transfer to the open line categories and they were all transferred to the said categories and appointed Relieving Ticket Collectors in the grade of Rs, 110-180. Subsequently, however, they were treated as senior to the petitioners in the grade of Ticket Collectors after counting their past service as Clerks and they were promoted as T. T. Es. by an order dated 18th May, 1971 contained in Annexure-13, the petitioners being withdrawn from the post of L. R. T. C. and posted as Ticket Collectors. The petitioners feel aggrieved from the fact of their being withdrawn from the post of L. R. T. C. and the promotion of opposite parties 5 to 19 to the post of T. T. E. in disregard of petitioners' superior claims to seniority. The petitioners rely on a letter of the Railway Board dated 27-7-1966 to the General Managers of all the Indian Railways contained in Annexure-10 providing that "as a general rule junior most employee must be transferred first whenever any curtailment in the general cadre takes place." According to the petitioners the divisionalisation scheme caused curtailment in the ministerial cadres, rendered the ministerial staff of those cadres surplus and if instead of retrenchment of such staff the General Manager decided to absorb it in the open line categories then in accordance with this letter of the Railway Board the Junior-most employees should have been transferred to the cadre of Ticket Collectors and if that had been done the petitioners seniority would not have been affected. The petitioners maintain that opposite parties 5 to 19 were not the juniormost clerks but senior clerks and their transfer was in disregard of Railway Board's instructions contained in the letter of 27th July, 1966 and it is further maintained that in any case opposite parties 5 to 19 could not be treated as senior to the petitioners because their seniority on transfer should have been determined as from the date of transfer or posting in the grade of Ticket Collectors and their past services in the ministerial cadre should not have been taken into account. On this basis the petitioners claim that they are senior to opposite parties 5 to 19 and, therefore, challenge validity of their promotion to the post of T. T. E. to which the petitioners by reason of their seniority were entitled. As against C. M. Shukla, opposite party No. 10 there is an additional plea that according to the scheme for divisionalisation announced by the General Manager in his letter of 7-3-1969 (Annexure-6) employees working in Accounts department could not be considered for transfer to the divisions and yet against the terms of this scheme he was transferred and posted as relieving Ticket Collector subsequently promoted as T. T. E. The validity of the transfers of opposite parties 5 to 19 to the grade of Ticket Collector and their promotion as T. T. Es. is, on these facts and allegations, challenged as illegal.;