Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) In this application the petitioner, who are several in numbers, are the employees holding the post of Senior Assistants in the Unit of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd. They were originally the employees of the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. prior to its nationalisation and taking over by the Government of this insurance business. Tho petitioners complain in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution that all Special Assistants should be categorised as Superintendents under the General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Supervisory. Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974. The main grievance of the petitioners seems to be that there has been violation of Clause (5) of the said Scheme. The said Scheme, amended, now provides as follows : "(5) Categorisation of employees : (1) The employees shall be categorised into the appropriate categories on the basis of their substantive positions and nature of work as on the 1st day of January, 1975 as specified in sub-paragraphs (2) to (4). (2)(a) Superintendents: Subject to sub-paragraph (4), the following shall be eligible to be considered as Superintendents, namely : (i) All those designed as Superintendents, Section Heads, Assistant Superintendents. Staff Assistants. Head Clerks or Supervisors and working in a supervisory capacity; (ii) * * * (iii) all those employees with specific scales or qualifications specially recruited in a position equivalent to one of those mentioned in sub-clause (i) or sub clause (ii)." Therefore, in order to be designated as Superintendents, which the petitioners claim, the petitioners must, in the lacs and circumstances he working either as Superintendents, Section Heads, Assistant Superintendents, Stiff Assistants. Head inks or Supervisors aid must be working in the supervision capacity. The petitioners contend that the petitioners nature of work were in the nature of supervisory work and therefore they were working in the supervisory capacities. This position is factually disputed by the respondents For the purpose of this application, it is not necessary for me to go into this question. It is necessary to consider whether the petitioners had been designated us Superintendents, Section Heads, Assistant Superintendents, Staff Assistants, Head Clerks or Supervisors, None of the petitioners, it is the admitted case, were designated as such on the relevant date. Therefore, whether, they did work in the supervisory capacities or not is, in my opinion, not quite relevant, This ground, in my opinion, is sufficient to defeat the Claim of the petitioners agitate in this case. The petitioners have further contended that there was a modification of this Scheme and the modification was not placed tor the assent of the President. This allegation has been made in paragraphs 17 & 18 of the petition and it is not necessary for me to go into ibis aspect of modification.
(2.) It was then contended that there was a discrimination it is difficult. In appreciate this allegation of discrimination in the scheme because certain categories of workmen, who were given certain designations and had been performing certain types of work were given this right. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that the petitioners were not performing the work of the supervisory function. As I have mentioned before, it is not necessity, in the view I have taken to go into this aspect of the matter.
(3.) It is secondly urged that all the necessary parties were not before this Court, whose rights would be affected, it the petitioners grievances were accepted. On the other hand, on behalf of the petitioners, it was submitted mat the petitioners were not agitating against any particular employees or were asking for a placement above any particular employee. Therefore, there was no question of not joining all the necessary parties. In this connection reliance was placed on certain observations of the Supreme Court in the case of G.M.S.C. Railway v. A.V.R. Siddhanta, AIR 1974 SC 1755 where the Supreme Court observed that Where a validity of policy decisions of the Railway Board regulating seniority of the railway staff was challenged on the ground of there being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ai d the relief was claimed only against the railway, it was sufficient if the railways had been made parties and non joinder of the employees likely to be affected by the decision in the case was not fatal to the writ petition. But the learned Advocate for the respondents pointed out that unless the strength of the cadre of the Superintendents was increased, it was not possible to designate all the petitioners as Superintendents without affecting others. Therefore, it would not be appropriate logo into this aspect of the question in the absence of the parties who would be affected to the view I have taken on the first aspect of the matter, it is not necessary lot me to rest my decision on this question.;