1982 from the Chief Personnel Officer, Integral Coach Factory to the Joint director, Establishment, Railway Board.
As a result of this decision, the Inspection Wing is number treated as a separate cadre unlike the Progress Wing.
The further facts are number material for deciding the point in companytroversy.
1967 was cancelled and all posts in the P.C.O. were declared ex cadre by a circular dated 28.8.
It is admitted that the serv ice companyditions in the P.C.O. are better than those of the companyresponding posts in the shop floor.
This is the reason for those in the P.C.O. number wanting to revert to the shop floor and the keenness of persons from the shop floor to go to the P.C.O. Some employees working in the shop floor have preferred S.L.P. Civil No.
This was in pursu ance to the suggestion of the staff itself that the Progress Wing alone be treated as separate cadre in the P.C.O. and number the remaining wings.
1967 was struck down by the Madras High CoUrt vide its order dated 22.8.
4468 of 1982 filed in the Madras High Court by the respondents was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 7.4.1984.
This circular dated 29.9.
The writ appeal of the railway adminis tration was thereafter dismissed by the High Court on 22.6.1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.6.1987 of the Tamil Nadu High Court in W.A. No.
Accord ing to this decision, all posts in the P.C.O. except the Progress Wing companytinued to be ex cadre posts and the tenure of these posts was directed to be strictly adhered to.
E NG 1 81 PM 1/259 CA dated 20.3.
In short, it was a reversion to the initial stage companytained in the order dated 22.4.1963 of the Railway Board except for the Progress Wing.
Accord ingly, the procedure laid down in the order dated 29.9.
This again met with difficulty in implementation giving rise to circular dated 29.9.1967 of the Office of the General Manager Personnel Branch Staff of the Integral Coach Factory.
1977 of the General Manag ers Office Personnel Branch Fur.
Thereafter, another step was taken by the railway administration which may be mentioned.
The Railway Board companyveyed its approval to this proposal in its letter No.
3838 of 1988.
At the next stage, a proposal was made by the Integral CoaCh Factory to the Railway Board which is companytained in the letter dated 1.3.
this policy was further modified for the Inspection Wing by a circular dated 13.8.1965 of the Office of the GM PB Shell of the Integral Coach Factory.
This is the basis of the grievance of the employees of the Inspection Wing which led to the filing of the writ petition giving rise to this appeal.
All employees were to be allotted a trade and given option either to go to the shop floor or remain perma nently in the P.C.O. However, this too companyld number be imple mented on account of the protest of the staff and the unions representing them.
The existing position regarding en cadering of the posts in the C.O. in all wings of Southern Railway and Progress Wing of Integral Coach Factory was allowed to be companytinued.
According to this modification, the Inspection Wing was to form a separate ex cadre unit and the employees in the Inspection Wing were given proforma position in the cadre posts in their trade and companyld be reverted to their parent cadre in the shop floor in the position which they occupied in the shop floor.
This led to the issuance of the order dated 8.6.1982 by General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, stating that in accordance with the Railway Boards approval, the Progress Wing alone of the C.O. would be a separate cadre and number the remaining wings.
It also affects the prospects of those in the shop floor who are denied the chance of being taken in the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. because of the companytinuance permanently of those already there retaining their lien in the shop floor.
This was a half way measure implemented straightaway in the Inspection Wing, but companyld number be imple mented in the other three wings, namely, Progress, Planning and Time Study, because of certain practical difficulties therein.
T.M. Sampath and K.V. Sreekumar for the Respondents.
Reasons in support of the proposal were also given therein.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. This matter brings to the fore once again the ineptitude with which litigation is companyducted quite often on behalf of the Government of India and State Governments even when important issues having lasting and wide repercussions are involved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, B.K. Prasad, K. Srivastava, P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellants.
This was the first stage, as described by the learned Additional Solicitor General, for the employees in the P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Facto ry, Perambur.
At the next stage.
PB S M/6/ATC which refers to the Railway Boards letter No.
Option was given to the staff in the Progress, Planning and Time Study Wings of the P.C.O. to get absorbed and interpolated in the shop floor leaving the Inspection Wing separate.
Inspite of this fact, to support validity of the impugned policy the re quired materials were number produced in the High Court and to overcome the adverse decision several opportunities given by us to produce the entire relevant record were number availed.
9774 of 1990 arising out of a companynected matter and have supported the stand of the railway administration taken in Civil Appeal No.
The staff directly recruited in the P.C.O. were to be allotted a trade and given the option for getting absorbed in the shop floor On 13.10.1964, a modification was made which is companytained in the G.M. P s letter No.
The employees transferred from the shop floor to the P.C.O. were to retain their lien in the shop floor and deemed to be on temporary transfer.
E NG 59SR 6 22 dated 22.4.
The acceptance of the respondents claim results in striking down the Railways policy to this extent of number treating the Inspection Wing also as a separate cadre like the Progress Wing.
Writ Petition No.
in the workshops including the Integral Coach Factory.
3838 of 1988.
A modification m the earlier proposal was made by this order.
of the Integral Coach Factory.
This gave rise to some practical difficulty and the permanently absorbed staff in the P.C.O. were given option to revert to the shop floor.
1975 in a petition filed by employees of the shop floor on the ground that the General Manager of the Integral Coach Factory had numberpower to act inconsistently with the Railway Boards circular and the remedy is to modify the Railway Boards circular dated 22.4.1963.
The Integral Coach Factory issued a circular on 21.9.1984 companyveying Railway Boards decision companytained in the letter dated 13.9.1984 regarding the staffing pattern of the P.C.Os.
555 of 1984.
This companytention of the respondents has been accepted by the High Court.
