Holding

The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish any arbitrary or class discrimination and dismissed the writ petitions, directing them to seek relief before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Summary

The petitioners, Group C railway employees from the Control Stream, challenged several Railway Board circulars that restructured cadres and fixed inter‑se seniority based on grades Rs 700‑900 and above, alleging class discrimination and unfair exclusion from promotion to Group B posts. The Court examined the history of pay‑scale revisions, the various circulars issued between 1976 and 1988, and the arguments that the method disadvantaged the Control Stream. Finding that the petitioners had not produced concrete data to prove arbitrary discrimination and that the matter was more suitable for the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, leaving the petitioners free to approach the Tribunal with fuller facts.

Issues considered

Whether the Railway Board circulars of 29 July 1983 and 26 December 1983, and the method of fixing inter‑se seniority for Group C employees, amount to arbitrary or class discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the principle of considering all employees in grades Rs 700‑900 and above as a single group for seniority is valid and lawful.
Whether the writ petitions under Article 32 are maintainable or the appropriate remedy lies with the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Subjects

seniorityrailway promotionclass discriminationcircularsCentral Administrative TribunalArticle 32Group CGroup BRailway Boardupgradation

Judgment

AMAR DEO PRAKASH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

FEBRUARY 19, 1990

B [S. RANGANATHAN AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.]

Railway Establishment Manual-Ru/es 202 and 321 and Railway
Board Circulars dated July 29, 1983 and December 20, 1983-'Traffic
Stream' and 'Control Stream' mass up gradation and restructuring of the
cadres-Validity offor purposes of inter-se seniority.
c These writ petitions have been filed by Gronp 'C' (Class Ill)
employees of the Railways working in its Transportation (Traffic)
Department. The said Department has different streams e.g. 'ContrOI
Stream' and 'Traffic Stream' and the employees working therein have
different scales of pay. For purposes of their promotion to GJ"oup B. f-
D posts, it was necessary to fix their inter se seniority, as only those
employees from the different streams could be considered for 11romo-
tlon as would fall within the zone of consideration as per seniority list.
As the zone of consideration is determined with reference to the number
of vacancies in Group B for which selection is held, at any point of time,

B
the position of the employee in the combined seniority list of all the
streams is important. The zone of consideration of the employees for
J
promotion is fixed in the order of the combined seniority of the
employees from the different streams. The Department prior to the ·
implementation of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission

~
fixed the inter se seniority of the employees of Group C employees on
the basis of the grade i.e. employees working bl a higher grade on a
F regnlar basis were treated senior to those workillg in the lower grade
and the said principle worked well until the enforcement of the recom- 'iy·
mendatlons of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1973, when higher
or lower scales of pay came to be fixed in respect of certain posts which
were having the same scale of pay upto 31.12.1972. This presented
difficulty In fixing the imer se seniority of the employees and the Rall·
G way Board in order to.resolve the difficulty Issued circulars from time
to time Indicating how their seniority should be fixed but for some
reason or the other, the dissatisfaction amongst the employees In the
matter of seniority continued. Being aggrieved by the expe1·iments
)>
which according to the petitioners only resulted In chaos and contusion,
employees of the Control Stream have flied the writ petition on the Issue
H of a combined seniority list published by the administration on the basis

450
AMAR DEO PRAKASH v. U.0.1. [RANGANATHAN, J.] 451

of instructions on 15.6.85, as they found themselves excluded from the
A
panel of staff to be taken into consideration for promotion to Group B.
They pray that the circular dt. 6. l.84 and the follow up action taken
culminating in the Selection List be set aside. The petitioner challenge
the validity of two circulars issued by the Board, one on 29. 7.83 and the
other on 26.12.1983, restructuring the cadres as discriminatory as
according to them they envisage 'mass upgradation' to their detriment. B
The question for determination is whether the principle adopted on the
strength of these circulars for fixing the inter se seniority of these
employees is proper.

Dismissing the writ petitions with liberty to the Petitioners to
move the Central Administrative Tribunal, if so advised with fuller
facts, this Court, C

HELD: The inequity is not apparent. Having to deal with two
different streams, differently placed, the Government has to find out an
equitable solution and it has been groping towards It. One method
would perhaps have been to have fixed. quotas for promotion from each D
of the streams but that Is not necessarily the only method. An alterna·
tlve method Is being attempted here and the principle that grades of
Rs. 700-900 and above should be considered together being conceded-
the Department is trying to give some welghtage by granting upgrada·
tlon to each stream based on Its total strength In order to balance the
promotional chan~es In both the streams. It Is possible that some lndi- E
vidual cases may be affected but no answer to the question whether any
class discrimination has resulted can be given unless fuller details are
available and the practical Impact of the latest position Is placed before
the Court, [463A·Cl

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11704 F
of 1985 etc. ·

(Under Article 32 of·the Constitution of India).

R.P. Gupta for'the Petitioners.
G
V.C. Mahajan, Ms. A. Subhashini, B.K. Prasad, C. Ramesh and
Hemani Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RANGANATHAN, J. These two writ petitions were filed as H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

early as 1985 but they are still at the admission stage. However notices
A have been issued to the respondents and we have heard counsel on
both sides. As both the writ petitions relate to the same subject mat-
ter, it will be convenient to dispose of them by a common order and we
proceed to do so.

B The controversy in these writ petitions is as to the proper princi-
ple for determination of seniority in the Transportation (Traffic) De-
partment of the Indian Railways. Though the petitioners in Writ Peti-
tion No. 11704 of 1985 belong to the Central Railways, the principle to
be determined will have application over all the the nine Railways in
the country and is being agitated in Writ Petition No. 12802 of 1985 by
the All India Train Controller's Association. The officials with whom
c we are concerned in these writ petitions occupy Group C (Class III)
posts in the above department. The question of their inter se seniority
has become material for their promotion to Group B (Class II) posts
which really form the lowest rung of the management cadre. 75% of r~
the vacancies arising in Group B (Class II) posts in each department
D are filled in by promotion on selection from among Group C (Class
III) employees of the department on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
The difficulty in determination of the inter se seniority arises because
there are different streams of eligible Group C (Class III) employees,
occupying posts with different scales of pay, who have to be con-
sidered for selection to Group B posts. As only those employees from J
E1. the different streams can be considered as fall within the zone of
consideration as per seniority and as the zone of consideration is
determined with reference to the number of vacancies in Group B for
which the selection is held at any point of time, the position of an
employee in the combined seniority list of all the streams assumes
great importance.

We are concerned with the selections for appointment to three
Group B posts in the Operating Branch of the Traffic and Transporta-
tion Department. These are: Assistant Operating Superintendent,
Assistant Traffic Superintendent and Station Superintendent. The
four Group C streams which have the avenue of promotion to the
0 above group B posts are: ( 1) The Control Stream, which consists of
the Chief Controller, the Deputy Chief Controller and the Section
Controller; (2) The Traffic Stream, which comprises of the Station
Master, the Yard Master, Traffic Inspector and Signaller; (3) The
Ministerial Stream, consisting of office staff and (4) The Running
Stream, consisting of Guards. We are here concerned only with the
l;I question of inter se seniority between the employees in the Control
AMAR DEO PRAKASH v. U.0.1. !RANGANATHAN, J.] 453

Stream and ihose in the Traffic Stream.
A
As mentioned earlier, there are several grades and scales of pay
prevailing in each of these streams. It will be helpful to tabulate them
here for convenient reference:

Control Stream B

~ Post Scale of Pay

Pre 1931 !Pay II Pay III Pay
Commission Commission Commission
Chief Controller360-500 450-575 450-575 850-1040/1200
' Deputy Chief 400-500 300-400 370-475 700-900 c
Controller
Section Con-
-4. !roller Grade I 300-350 260-350 335-425 }
) 470-750
Grade II 200-300 200-300 270-380 ) D

Traffic Stream
Post Scale of Pay
.~
Pre 1931 !Pay II Pay III Pay
Commission Commission Commission E
Station Supdt./ 120-165/)
Jn. S.M./CYM/ 80-160/ ) 300-400 450-575 700-900
TI (Higher) 200-300 )
~ Stn. Master
(Higher) F
··~
Dy. Supdt. 80-160 300-400 370-475 550-750
/YM/TI (Lower)
SM (Lower) 60-65 80-170 130-225 330-560
Grade and
others 80-120 100-185 205-330 425-640
150-225 'G

200-300 250-380 455-700
·~· 260-350 335-425 550-750

The zone of consideration of the employees for promotion is
fixed in the order of the combined seniority of the employees from the H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

A different streams. In each ot the streams, seniority depends on the
grade. Normally, employees working in a higher grade on a regular
basis are senior to those working in the lower grade. To illustrate, the
highest Group C grade was Rs.450-575 followed by the grades Rs.370-
475, Rs.335-485, Rs.335-425 and so on. (We are referring here to the
old pay scales which have since been revised). The employees working
B in the grade Rs.450-575 were therefore placed on the top followed by
those in the grades of Rs.370-475, Rs.335-485 and Rs.335-425. This
principle for det~rmination of inter se seniority worked very well till
31. 12. 72 as the higher scales of pay in both the streams was the same.
According to the department, it became difficult to follow this princi-
ple when, consequent on the acceptation and implementation of the
recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with effect from
c I. I. 1973, higher or lower scales of pay came to be fixed in respect of
certain posts which were having the same scale of pay upto 31.12 . 1972.
For example, the scale of pay of Rs.450-575 held by Station Masters
and Traffic Inspectors in the Traffic Stream upto 31.12. 72 was
upgraded to the scale Rs. 700-900 with effect from 1.1. 73. On the other
D hand, in the case of Chief Controllers of the Control Stream, the same
scale of Rs.450-575 was replaced by a scale of Rs.840-1040/1200. Simi-
larly, in the case of Station Masters and Inspectors in the grade of
Rs.370-475 in the Traffic Stream, the replacement was by the scale of
Rs.550-750 while in the case of Deputy Chief Controllers on the scale
Rs.370-475, the replacement scale was Rs.700-900. Thus the Control
E Stream gained an upper hand in the matter of seniority and, conse-
4 uently, of promotions.

In an ·attempt to restore some balance and parity between the
employees of the different streams, the Railway Board issued certain
instructions on 26th October, 1976. As per these instructions, the inter
F se seniority of the staff working in the grade of Rs. 700-900 and the
grades above it in the different streams was to be based on the total
length of service rendered by an employee in all the grades. This did
nqt satisfy all Sections of the staff and difficulties were also experien-
ced in applying'the instructions. For example, a Deputy Chief Control-
ler, who had been in the grade of Rs.370-475 upto 31.12.72 and was
G placed on Rs.700-900 from 1.1.73, gained an advantage over his colle-
gues in the other stream viz. the Station Masters and Traffic Inspec-
tors. The matter was therefore reconsidered and modified instructions
were issued on 11.7.77. According to these instructions, for purposes
of drawing out the combined seniority of Group C employees from
different streams, the services rendered in the top-most scale in one
H stream would be considered equivalent to the service rendered in the
AMAR DEO PRAKASH v. U.0.I. IRANGANATHAN, J.l 455

top-most scale in the other streams, even though the top-most scale in
the two streams might be different. This rule also produced anomalies. A
For example, if in one stream, the top-most scale was Rs. 700-900, in
another Rs.550-750 and in yet another Rs.840-1040, the length of
service rendered in all these grades by the employees was stated to be
the basis to determine the combined seniority. Thus an employee hav-
ing ten years of service in the top-most scale of Rs.550-750 in one B
stream would rank senior to another having slightly less than ten years
of service in the top-most scale of Rs.700-900 in another stream. The
Department, therefore, issued revised instructions in August'78/
February'79. As per these instructions, where the top-most scale prior
to 1.1.1973 has been replaced by two different scales after 1. 1. 73, one
higher and the other lower, service rendered in the lower scale will be
notionally stepped up as if the service had been rendered in the higher C
scale. For example, the grade of Rs.450-575 was replaced by Rs.840-
1040 for the Controllers and Rs. 700-900 for Sta.tion Masters and
J Traffic Inspectors. While drawing up the combined seniority, the
service rendered in the grade of Rs.700-900 by the Station Masters and
Traffic Inspectors was to be treated as service rendered in the grade D
Rs.840-1040. Similarly, the pre-revised grade of Rs.370-475 had given
rise to two scales, namely, Rs. 700-900 and Rs.550-750, and, in that
case, the service rendered in the grade Rs.550-750 was notionally
treated as rendered in grade Rs. 700-900 for drawing up the combined
seniority. This principle did not work well either. It seems the circulars
of 11. 7. 77 and August'78 were quashed by the Bombay High Court in E
W.P. No. 55 of 1980 by its order dated 14.12.83. In the meantime.
detailed consideration of the issues was undertaken in consultation
with the federations of organised labour and it was finally decided that
the combined seniority for purposes of Group B selection should be
determined on the basis of the total length of service rendered by
··.~ employees in any or in all the grades commencing from Rs. 700-900 and F
above and these instructions were issued on 5.3.83. In January 1984.
further instructions were issued which, while maintaining the princi-
ples laid down on 5.3.83, provided protection to senior employees,
who got superseded in a stream for promotion to the higher .non-
gazetted grade in that stream. For example, if an employee in grade of
Rs. 700-900 supersedes one of his seniors in promotion to the grade of G
Rs.840-1040 within ·the stream, he would control the seniority of the
employee whom he had superseded. Such a superseded employee
would be put to hardship when the combined seniority is drawn up
along with employees from the other streams for purposes of selection
to Group B. In order to avoid the situation of a senior employee being
subjected to such disability, instructions were issued on 6.1.1984 that H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] I S.C.R.

an employee who supersedes his senior will be credited with the
service of the senior whom he had superseded. Aggneved by these
experiments which, according to them, only resulted in chaos and
confusion, 45 employees of the Control Stream filed WP I I7041~5
when, on the issue of a list published by the administration on the basis
of these instructions on 15.6.85, they found themselves exclu.ded from
B the panel of staff to be taken into consideration for promotion to
Group B. They prayed that the circular of 6.1.84 and the follow-up
action culminating in the Selection List be also set aside.

The petitioners are also aggrieved by a different set of steps
initiated by the Railway Board. A further discrimination against the
control stream, it is alleged, has resulted from two circulars issued by
c the Board, one on 29.7.83 and the other on 26.12.83. These circulars
envisaged, what the petitioners call, "mass upgradations .. and what
the circulars call a "restructuring of the cadres ...

The earlier of the two circulars applied to the traffic stream. In so
D far as is relevant for our present purposes, the "upgradation .. was on
. the following lines:

Name of Existing Revised Revised Percentage Remarks
post scale Designation Scale of posts
p
Yard Masters 455/700 Dy. Chief 700-900 20%
/Asst. Yard Yard Masters
Masters
Yard Masters 550-750 Chief Yard 840-1040 10% of
Masters post in
F scale of
700-900
Station 455-700 Station 700-900 10%
Master Supdt.
Dy. Station 350-750 Station 840-1040 10% of
G Supdt./ Supdt. posts in
Station scale of
Master Rs.700-900
Separate 700-900 43.5% This we are
cardre of (10% of told, has
H Station these will .not been
AMAR DEO PRAKASH v. U.0.1. IRANGANATHAN, J.] 457 .

Masters/ carry scale given
A
Asstt. of Rs.840- effect
Station 1040 to.
Superin-
tendants

B
The circulantated that this restructuring will be with reference to the
sanctioned strength as on 1.8.83. The staff, who will be placed in the
revised grade in terms of these orders will be eligible to draw pay on
the liigher grades from 1.8.83 with benefit of proforma prom9tlon
from 1.8.82. It was made clear that the benefit of proforma fixation
will be admissible only to the staff who .are placed in the vacancies
arising directly as a result of these restructuring orders .. The date of C
proforma fixation has later been shifted, from 1.8.82 to 1.8.83 ·by a
circular dated 13.7.1987 .
....
The second circular, dated 20.12.1983 pertained to the control
stream. The restructuring was on the basis of the cadre strength as on D
l. l.84 and the revision of scales was also to be effective from 1.1.84.
The pattern of restructure, in so far as it is relevant for our present
purposes, is set oui thus in the schedule:
~ Existing Grade & Eosts Existing Revised
percentage percentage E

(i) 470-7~0 Not laid 15

.., (ii)
(Section Controllers)

700-900
down
,,
58
,,,,,., (Dy. Chief Controllers) F

,,
(iii) 340-1040 23 I 85
(Chief Controller- I
Gr. II) . I G

. (iv) 840-1200
(Chief Controller-
,,
4
I
~
r
Gr. II)
H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) 1 S.C.R.

It was made clear that the cadre has been restructured keeping in view
additional duties, responsibilities and heavier workload in some of the
charges and that the revised grades were to be given to employees
eligible therefor on such considerations in their existing positions.

Reference must be made to two more circumstances before we
B deal with the contentions urged before us. The first is that the circular
of 6.1.84 referred to above which. according to the counsel for the
petitioner introduced the principle of "chance seniority" was
quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated
5.2.1988. A copy of this order has not been made available to us.
Secondly, consequent on the said decision of the Tribunal, the Rail-
c way Board issued certain instructions on 22.12.88 which reads thus:

"Consequent upon the judgment given by the Central
Administrative Tribunal in connection with the above,
matter has been reviewed in consultation with the repre-
sentatives of the recognised organised federations and it
D has been decided in partial modification of the orders con-
tained in Railway Board's letters ..... dated 28.5.83 and
6.11.84 that the integrated seniority of group C employees
for promotion to' group B posts should be determined on
the basis of consolidated length of non-fortuitous serviCe
rendered in the grade of Rs.700-900/2000-3200 and above
E ignoring promotions to the grade of Rs. 840-1040/2375-
3500 ...... "
•
It may be mentioned that the petitioners were fully satisfied with
the circular of 5.3.83 which according to them, gave effect to rule 321
of the Indian Railway Establishment Miµmal. According to them, this
F equilibrium was unjustifiably disturbed by the circulars issued subse-
quently. The principal grievance urged before us by learned counsel
for the petitioner was that, as a re~ult of the restructuring orders read
with the order reckoning all persons working in salary grades of
Rs. 700-900 and above as one group for determining seniority, the
control stream staff has been adversely affected to a considerable
G extent. He: points out that persons in the Traffic Stream who entered
the supervisory grade of Rs.470-750 were placed in the grade of
Rs. 700-900 much later than the dates when those in the control stream
entered the corresponding scale of Rs.455-700 will gain seniority over
the latter .. He asks us to compare for this purpose the positions of
officers in the control stream with seniority positions Nos. 90 to 190
with those occupying seni\)ritv positions Nos. 61 to 208 in the traffic
AMAR DEO PRAKASH v. U.0.1. IRANGANATHAN, J.l 459

· stream. He contends that the staff employed in the control stream lose
both monetarily as well as in terms of seniority by being placed in the A
scale of Rs.700-900 only w.e.t: 1.1.84 as compared to those of the
traffic stream who receive such promotions and pay scales w.e.f.
1.8.83. Leaving aside the question of monetary benefits for the time
being, the submissions are: '
B
(i) that seniority should be determined on the total length of
~) servic,e as envisaged in rules 202 and 321 of the Indian Railways
Establishment Manual, which read thus:

"202-For selection to class II posts or Civil Engg. Trans-
c:- portation (power) and Mechanical Branch, Transportation
(traffic) and Commercial, Signal and Telecommunication, c
Electric and Stores Department.

(i) Only permanent staff will be eligible

(ii) all staff in grade Rs.335-425 and above provided they D
have rendered a minimum of 3 years non-fortuitous service
after reaching the stage of Rs.335 either in those grades or
in a lower grade. /

.../
321-Relative Seniority of employees in an intermediate
grade belonging to different seniority units appearing for a E
selection/non-selection post in higher grade.

'When a post (seleetion as well as non-selection) is filled by
/ ... considering staff of different seniority units, the total
length of continuous service in the same or equivalent
grade held by the employee shall be determining factor for F
~
assigning inter-seniority irrespective of the date of confir-
mation of an employee with lesser length of continuous
service as compared to another unconfirmed employees
with longer length of continuous service. This is subject to
the proviso that only non-fortuitous service should be
taken in account for this purpose." G
(ii) that if all the grades in the eligible groups are to be
clubbed together, the seniority should be reckone.d as and
from the date of entry into the lowest of the grndes in
Group 'C' (class III) viz. Rs.470-750/455-700;
H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19901 1 S.C.R.

(iii) that even if the mass upgradations are to be upheld on
A
principle, they must. be directed to be made effective from
the same date (whether it be 1.8.83 or 1.1.84) in respect of
both the streams and should not be on different dates.

(iv) that the whole object and purpose of these circulars is
B to obliterate the effect of the recommendations of the
Third (and even the Fourth) Pay Commissions, after asses-
sing the duties and responsibilities of the staff in both
streams, that the staff.on the control stream deserve higher
scales although these recommendations have been duly-ac-
cepted and implemented by the Government.
c According to the learned counsel, the traffic stream has a huge
strength and a powerful union and, pressurised by their numbers, the
Railway Board. is attempting to take away, indirectly, the benefits
given to the control stream by the Pay Commission's recommendations
and that too at a point of time when a fresh Pay Commission was in the
D process of being constituted. Counsel also alleged that the All India
Controllers' Association (which has filed writ petition No. 12802 on
similar lines) has not been consulted at any stage and these circulars
are being issued at. the behest .of the unions of the traffic staff and
despite the representations ~nd protests of the comparatively weaker
union of the control staff.
E
On the other hand, Sri V.C. Mahajan, learned counsel for the
Union of India, submitted that the petitioners have not placed any
data beforethe Court to make out a case of discrimination. He submits
that after the Writ Petitions were filed in 1985 the Department has
issued a circular dated 27 .12.88 and a combined seniority list in March
F 1989. The petitioners have not taken any steps to amend the Writ
Petition to challenge this circular or this list or to show in what respect
and to what extent the rights of the petitioners have been prejudiced
by the restructuring orders. Turning to the "restructuring" circulars,
counsel points out that in this case the Government has been hard put
to evolve an equitable formula for fair promotional chances to the two
G sets of people in question. Various attempts had been made earlier but
they were not successful. Finally the present formula has been evolved
after consulting all the concerned unions. It is not correct, he says, to
say that the decisions have been taken without consulting the rep-
resentatives of the Controlling Stream. It is submitted that, having
regard to the fow posts at the top of the scale, the Traffic Stream had
H been complaining of inadequate promotional opportunities. The
AMAR DEO PRAKASH v. U.0.1. [RANGANATHAN, J.] 461

Government has treid to solve the problem as best as it could and A
counsel refers to the followihgbasic features behind the restructuring:
•
(i) The date of entry into grades Rs.700-900 above will be taken
as the starting point to reckQ_n seniority. This is the effect of the
circular of 22.12.88 the validity of which has not been challenged
in the petitiOn. B

(ii) Considering the large strength of employees in the Traffic
Stream, viz.· 4430, about 10% of the posts have been upgraded
which will 1)1ean that abo11t 443 persons will be in the above

- grades. So .far as the Control Stream is concerned~ the per-
centage of posts in the ab9ve +one has been increased·to about. C
35% of the 270 posts avaii1tble with the result that about 211
people will be in the above grades. As a result of the mass upgra-
d!l-tion, a large percentage of people in the Control Stream
immediately derive monetary benefits. They have accepted these
benefits and \)ave been occupying the upgraded position since
,
.. 1984 onwards. D

(iii) The date of the upgradatiorl' in both th~: streams cannot be
the same for the result of it would be 'tllat all the upgraded
personnel will have seniority reckonable from the same date.
This being the position, their seniority will have to be based on
the length of their services in. the immediately lower scales or E
reckoned as from the date of their entry into the lowest ·of the
-~
Group·C grades and this would have revived the same problem
~hich the Government was trying to solve. That is why the
Govemme!ll fixed different dates for the two streams separated
only by ·11 short span of five months and this was neither
unreasonat>1e nor discriminatory. F
. . .
Counsel submits that the Government was trying to forge out a
solution that will be fair "to both the streams and that the attempt of the
petitioners to accept the upgradaiions of the scales in their stream but
objecting to the other part regarding date of fixation should not be
allowed to succeed. He submits that if the petitioners were prepared to G
accept the same percentage of upgradation as the Traffic Stream
pers6nnel and give up the extra benefits received, the Government
·>-'· could reconsider the whole question afresh.
After hearing both counsel, we have reached the conclusion that
.the materials before us are totally inadequate to come to any conclu-
sion on the tr11e impact' of the circulars. In fact, to start with, we were H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] 1 S.C.R.

of the view that, in a matter like this, the proper remedy of the
A
petitioners is to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal which
has been set up for that very purpose. But since counsel for the
petitioners pleaded that the writ petitions have been pending here
since 1985 and it would not be fair to the petitioners to sent them now
to .pursue that remedy, we heard the petitioners ar;id the opposite
a parties at some length but, as will emerge from the above discussion,
the exact position and impact of the circulars is very nebulous. As
pointed out by Sri Mahajan, the Department is trying to cope with the
problem of giving fair promotional opportunities to two different
streams which become eligible for promotion to Group B posts. Since

-
the counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has no quarrel with the
circulars of 5.3.83 and 22.12.88 and since the circular of 6.1.84 already
c stands quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the only grie-
vance of the petitioners that survives is against the upgradation circu-
lars. Apart from the merits, there are three difficulties in considering
the plea of the petitioners that the part of the two circulars fixing
different dates of upgradation should alone be set aside:
D
(a) The plea of the petitioners, if accepted, will affect a large
number of persons in the traffic stream and even result in a
number of reversions in all the Railways. Though the petitioners
have made some persons in the traffic stream working in the
Central Railway parties, neither the persons likely to be affected
a in other parts of the country nor their union have been made
parties.

(b) As discussed above, the circular of 20. 12. 83. confers sub· ::
stantial benefits on members of the control stream. A large
number of them have been able to secure an upgradation to the ~
F scale of Rs. 700-900 which, otherwise, may not have come to
them for sometime, and they may or may not all be affected 7
adversely by the date of upgradation. It is also pointed out that
upgradation in the traffic stream are subject to selection on the
basis of a written test and viva voce, while the upgradations in
the control stream are automatic based on seniority-cum-suitabi-
0 lity. It is, therefore, not clear even whether the All India Con-
troller's Union is speaking in one voice for all its members either
for or against the circular of20.12.83.

(c) As pointed out by Sri Mahajan, the Department has issued a
seniority list in pursuance of its circular. No attempt has been
H made to substantiate the grievances of the petitioners by pointed
factual references to that list.
AMAR DEO PRAKASH v. U.0.1. (RANGANATHAN, J.) 463

Coming to the merits again, the inequity is not apparant. Having A
to deal with two different streams, differently placed, the Government
has to find out an equitable solution and it has been groping towards it.
One method would perhaps have been to ha.ve fixed quotas for promo-
tion from each of the streams but that is not necessarily the only
method. An alternative method is being attempted here-and the
principle that grades of Rs. 700-900 and• above should be considered B
together being conceded-the Department is trying to give some
__,;-'! weightage by granting upgradation to each stream based on its total
strength in order to balance the promotional chances in both the
streams. It is possible that some individual cases may be affected but
no answer to the question whether any class discrimination has re-
c
sulted can be given unless fuller ..details are available and the practical
• impact of the latest position is placed before us. If a good number of
persons in the control stream are benefitted monetarily despite the
disadvantage to a few, in the matter of promotion, it may be a question
how far the Association of the Controllers will be able to make out a
case of class discrimination. Even if we assume that the entire control
stream would be adversely affected, the question will still remain D
whether the basis of differentiation is justified in the circumstances or
amounts to arbitrary discrimination. We express no opinion on these
questions at this stage. We would only say that, in the absence of
adequate material before us, we are unable to reach any conclusion on
the plea of discrimination. We, therefore, dismiss the wirt petition but
we will leave it to the petitioners, if so advised, to move the Central E
Administrative Tribunal, with fuller facts and in the light of the latest
developments, for appropriate relief after impleading all affected
parties or their representatives so that the entire picture may emerge
..,, and a just conclusion arrived at .

Y.Lal Petition dismissed. F