- (1.) Though this writ petition has been instituted by two individuals, it is represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri J.M. Naidu, that the 2nd petitioner has already been absorbed in some other Railway Department and hence, the lis in this writ petition is currently confined only to the 1st petitioner.
(2.) The grievance of the surviving writ petitioner is that, notwithstanding a Policy decision taken to consider, for interdepartmental transfers, the cases of such Railway servants, who have undergone Family Planning Surgeries, the same benefit is not extended to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 15.11.1988 with the Railway Protection Force ('the Force', for short) and allotted to the Fire Branch. He appears to have undergone Family Planning Surgery voluntarily. The 3rd respondent - the Divisional Railway Manager, Hyderabad Division of South Central Railway, through his letter dated 15.5.1998, solicited instructions from the Divisional Security Commissioner, as to whether it will be feasible to spare the services of the personnel belonging to the Force for considering their cases under interdepartmental transfer policy, on account of the Family Planning Surgeries undergone by them. But however, the Divisional Security Commissioner, on the basis of the instructions passed on to him by the Chief Security Commissioner, South Central Railway, has declined to accede to the request for inter-departmental transfer or absorption of the personnel of the Force. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Chief Security Commissioner has not referred the matter to the Director General of the Force nor did he obtain any instructions from him in this regard. Hence, the rejection of his claim for inter-departmental transfer is bad.
(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Parliament enacted the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (Act No.23 of 1957) providing for the constitution and regulation of an Armed Force of the Union for better protection and security of railway property and for matters connected therewith and in terms of Section 3 of the said Act, Railway Protection Force has been constituted. The essential purpose for which this force was constituted is only to provide better protection an effective security cover of the railway property. Since, certain extraordinary powers are also needed to be conferred upon the members of the said Force, the Act has provided for special Provisions conferring certain powers to be exercised by the members of such Force. Otherwise, the members of the Force are essentially railway servants and they perform their duties and responsibilities exclusively in connection with railway assets and properties and their main concern was to extend a very effective protection and security cover to the properties as well as those who deal with the railway assets, including the general public. It is purely incidental that they also perform some of the duties and responsibilities, which are akin to those performed by the members of the Armed Forces enabling them to enter upon certain premises and also seize or detain property as well as men, and therefore, special powers have been conferred in that regard additionally. Otherwise, they are railway servants for all practical purposes and intent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to Section 10 of the Act No.23 of 1957, wherein it has been specified that the Director General and every member of the Force shall for all purposes be regarded as railway servants within the meaning of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, except to the exceptions set out in Chapter-VIA thereof. Further, Section 10 of Act No.23 of 1957 makes it clear that they will be entitled to exercise the powers conferred on railway servants by or under that Act. Therefore, the learned Counsel reiterates that apart from functioning as railway servants, the members of the Force also perform certain additional duties and functions and by their very nature of calling as such, they will be dealt with and treated as servants of the Indian Railways, like any other servant of railways, is treated. The functions, which have been described as performable by the members of the Force under Section 11 of the Act, are the core functions to be performed by every member of the Force and it is not as if they are unrelated to the functions performable by every other railway servants. It was further contended by the learned Counsel that Rule 2(k) of the Railway Protection Force Rules defined the expression "extant Railway Rules" in the following manner: "extant Railway Rules" means the rules contained in the Indian Railway General Code, Indian Railway Establishment Code, Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Indian Railway Code for Accounts Department, Indian Railway Code for the Stores Department, Indian Railway Code for the Engineering Department and includes any rules made under the Indian Railways Act, 1890 for railway servants";