Holding

The Court held that the Railway Board circular of July 2, 1970 is valid, seniority is determined by the date of appointment in Grade C per Rule 302, and the petitioners' challenge is barred by delay, so the seniority list stands.

Summary

The petitioners, railway employees, challenged the Railway Board's circulars of July 2, 1970 and November 28, 1981, alleging they were unconstitutional and that the seniority list prepared in 1968 should be maintained. They claimed the Board had no authority to grant retrospective seniority to promotees and that they were entitled to seniority based on their original Grade D appointment. The Court held that the petitioners could not contest the 1970 circular after an 11‑year delay and found no constitutional infirmity in the circular. It affirmed that seniority in Grade C is governed by Rule 302 of the Railway Establishment Manual, which bases seniority on the date of appointment in that grade, making the respondents senior. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed with costs and the seniority list stood as prepared.

Issues considered

The petitioners' right to challenge the Railway Board circular dated July 2, 1970 after a long delay.
The constitutional validity of the circular, particularly alleged discrimination and lack of authority.
Whether seniority of Train Examiners should be determined by date of appointment in Grade C under Rule 302 or by other criteria.
Whether the seniority list prepared in 1968 can be altered or must be maintained.
The entitlement of petitioners to seniority based on their original Grade D appointment.

Subjects

seniorityRailway Board circularadministrative lawdelay/limitationdiscriminationpromotionRule 302Railway Establishment Manualservice law

Judgment

YASHBIR SINGH & ORS., ETC.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

AUGUST 18, 1987

B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ I
·-.,,
Service matter-Seniority list challenged-Injunction sought
against issue of altered seniority list for the purpose of promotions,
confirmations, etc.

The petitioners were railway employees. The Railway Board
C issued a circular dated July 2, 1970, laying down procedure for filling )-
-
up posts of train examiners and upgradation of posts. It directed that
vacancies arising in Grade C after t.4.1%6 to the extent of 50 per cent
would be maintained in that grade and the remaining 50 per cent would
be down-graded to be filled by promotion of skilled artisans. It further
D directed that 50 per cent of the vacancies in Grade C should be filled by ~
direct recruitment of apprentice Train Examiners with five years'
training to the extent of 80 per cent thereof and the remaining 20 per
cent by promotees from Grade D as laid down in paragraph l of the
Circular dated 27.10.1965 of the Board. This procedure was directed to
be followed till the cadre position was normalised and the excess in the
E Grade of Rs.205-280 were eliminated. Paragraph 2 of the circular ""'
further directed that those promoted to Grade C in the scale of Rs.205· .-
280 as on April 1, 1966 would be assigned seniority amongst them-
selves in the order of their inter se seniority in the Grade of Rs.180·240
for the purposes of confirmation, etc., in that grade and they would [
rank senior to those recruited as apprentice train examiners with five
F years' training and appointed after 1.4.66 in the grade of Rs.205-280.
The result of the circular was that all those promotees, who had been
appointed to Grade D prior to 1.4.66 stood absorbed in Grade C and
they were granted seniority in that grade with retrospect!ve effect, that
is, with effect from April 1, 1966.

G The Railway Board later took a policy decision to abolish the f
entry grade D of train examiners in the pay-scale of Rs.180-240, and in
order to implement that decision issued a circular dated October 30,
1972, abolishing the entry Grade D of the train examiners and placing
the incumbents of that grade en masse in grade C in the scale of Rs.205-
280 with effect from 1.11. 72. Paragraph 2 of the circular directed that
fl the pay of the staff brought from Grade D (Rs.180-240) to grade C

1018
YASHBIR SINGH v. U.0.1. 1019

(Rs.205-280) would be fixed under Rule 2017 A (III) read with rule 2019 A
II. As all the incumbents of grade D in the scale of Rs.180-240 were
placed en masse in the higher grade C in the scale of Rs.205-280, a
provisional seniority list of grade C Train Examiners working in Delhi
Division was prepared on November 16, 1981. In that seniority list, the
~ petitioners were shown senior to some of the respondents as the senio- B
rity was not determined in accordance with Roi~ 302 of the Railway
Establishment Manual. This seniority list was not prepared in accord-
ance with the prescribed criteria, as had been done in the other Divi-
sions. The Board issued a circular dated 28.11.81, directing that the
Delhi Division should also fall in line with the other Divisions of the
- Northern Railway, and the seniority of the train examiners appointed
between 1.4.66 and 1.11.72 should be prepared in accordance with the C
existing practice. viz. on the basis of the date of appointment in the
particnlar grade. ·

In purs'uance of that direction, seniority of the train examiners of
grade C placed in that grade between 1.4.66 and 1.11.72, was published D
~ in 1981 by the authorities of the Delhi Division of the l'\orthern Railway.
After inviting objections, the seniority list was finally published in
December, 1982. In that seniority list, the petitioners were shown
junior to respondents 5 to 10. Aggrieved, the petitioners moved this
Court by writ petitions, challenging the validity of the seniority list and
for quashing the circulars dated July 2, 1970 and November 28, 1981 of E
)<
the Railway Board, and restraining the respondent-Railway autho-
...._ rities from altering or issuing the seniority list in pursuance of the
circular dated November 28, 1981 of the Railway Board and for main-
taining the seniority list issued in 1968.

Dismissing the petitions, the Court, F

HELD: The Respondents Nos. S to 10, who belonged to the group
of apprentice-train examiners were directly placed to working posts in
grade C after completion of S years' training in accordance with the
circular dated July 2, 1970 of the Railway Board, and each one of them
had been placed in grade C prior to 1.11.72, while the petitioners were G
'y placed in grade C with effect from 1.11.72, in pursuance of the circular
dated 30.10. 72 of the Railway Board. Since the respondents S to 10 were
appointed to grade C earlier and the petitioners were placed in that
grade later, the petitioners were shown in the seniority list junior to the
respondents concerned. No valid objection can be raised against
respondents' seniority. (1027H; 1028A-C] H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1987] 3 S.C.R.

A The petitioners challenged the validity of the Railway Board's
circular dated July I2, I970, in I98I-after II years. All the petitioners
were in service on the date that circular was issued and they were aware
that their colleagues (pr~motees belonging to grade D) were placed in
grade C and they had been granted seniority with retrospective effect,
but none of them challenged the validity of the circular. Now, the ·~
B petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the validity of that circular
after I I years. The petitioners should have challenged the circular
within a reasonable period of time which they did not do. It is well-
settled that anyone, who may feel aggrieved by an administrative order
or decision affecting his right, should act with due diligence and promp-

C
titude and not sleep over the matter. Taking up old matters after a long
time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties
-
and would create insecurity and instability in the service which would
affect its efficiency. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to
challenge the validity of the Railway Board's circular !lated July 2,
I970, after II years. Even otherwise, on merits, there is no legal and
constitutional infirmity in the circular. In order to reorganise the cadre
D of the train examiners to cope with the increased work load, the Rail-
way Board issued a Notification dated October 27, I965, reorganising the
cadre. The validity of the notification was challenged before this Court
in Roshan Lal Tandon's case. The Court struck down only a portion of
the notification and the rest of the directions contained in the notification
remained unaffected. After the judgment of the Court, the Railway
E Board reconsidered the matter, and, with a view to implementing the ~
decision of this Court and further carrying out its policy of reorganisa-
tion as initiated under its circular dated October 27, I965, issued the
circuiar dated July 2, I970, [l029A-H; l030A-B] •

The scheqte of reorganisation of the cadre as contemplated by the
1·
F circular dated October 27, I965, was to be operative with effect from
April I, 1966. The Petitioners' submission that the date April I, 1966,
was fixed in an arbitrary manner without any basis, is untenable. The
promotees, who were placed in the higher grade C with effect from
April I, I966, were undoubtedly senior to the petitioners in grade D,
and none of the petitioners' rights were affected by their promotions. 'f
G The Railway Board implemented the reorganisation scheme after the
decision of this Court in Roshan Lal Tandon's case. As promotion to
grade C had been stayed during the pendency of Tandon's case in this
Court, the Railway Board was justified in granting promotion with
retrospective effect from April I, 1966, as initially, the reorganisation
was proposed to be implemented from that date, which could not be
H done on account of stay orders issued by this Court. The petitioners
YASHBIR SINGH v. U.0.1. 1021

cannot claim parity with those who had been promoted to grade C
A
under the Railway Board's circular dated July 2, 1970, as they do not
belong to that class. Equality can be claimed amongst equals and
not with unequals. The persons, who had acquired the right of
promotion under the Railway Board's notification dated October 27,
)-- 1965, but could not be promoted on account of litigation, formed a
separate class, and the petitioners could. not equate themselves with B
them, as they were not entitled to promotion under the notification dated
October 27, 1965. There is no merit in the petitioners' plea of dis-
crimination. [103AF-H]

- The validity of the Railway Board's circular dated July 2, 1970,
was challenged by a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which C
upheld the same. Again, the validity of that circular as well as
the circular dated January 28, 1981 of the Railway Board was chal-
lenged by a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which upheld the
same. [l032F-H]

~ By the Circular dated October 30, 1972, of the Railway Board, the D
entry grade of train examiners in the scale of Rs.180-240, was abolished
and all the train examiners in that grade were placed in the scale of
Rs.205-280 with effect from November l, 1972. The petitioners were
included in grade C with effect from November l, 1972, and, therefore,
they are entitled to seniority with effect from that date in Grade C. The
).._ petitioners are not entitled to claim seniority in grade C with reference E
to the date of their appointment in grade D. The respondents 5 to 10
were appointed in grade C earlier than the petitioners and, therefore,
they are senior to the petitioners. Rule 302 of the Railway Establishment
J Manual lays down a general rule for determining seniority from the
date of appointment in a particular grade when a person is promoted to
or placed in a higher grade, his seniority is determined with reference to F
the date of such promotion or placement unless the relevant rules pro-
vide to the contrary. Seniority in lower grade has no meaning for
determining seniority in the higher grade except for determining inter
se seniority of the promotees. In the absence of any contrary provision
',, in the Rules, the general rule of seniority laid down by Rule 302 must
prevail. [1034G-H; l035A-E] G

It appears that in the seniority list prepared in 1968, the names of
some of the respondents were shown in grade Don a wrong assumption.
The respondents 5 to IO were apprentices undergoing training, and in
accordance with the directions contained in the Railway Board's notifi-
cation dated October 27, 1965. they were entitled to appointment H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.
~
A straightaway on completion of their training. They were drawing
stipend at a rate which was the scale prescribed for grade D, but they
did not belong to grade D and could not be included in the seniority list
of grade D. The petitioners cannot draw advantage from the mistake
committed in including the names of the respondents in the seniority list

B
oft968. [103SF-H; 1036A] 1
The petitioners were placed in higher grade C with effect from
November 1, 1972, and they are entitled to seniority with reference to >I
their placement in that grade and Ikey have no legal right to claim

c
seniority in that grade as against those who were appointed to that
grade before November 1, 1972. [1036C-D]

y
--
Whether the petitioners were promoted to grade C or were placed
en masse in that grade, does not make any difference in so far their
entry to grade C is concerned; in eithet case, they entered grade C with
effect from November 1, 1972. The petitioners have failed to show that
any person junior to them has been made senior to them. Their
D grievance is without any substance. [1037C-E] >-
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 9222 to 9226
of 1981.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
E ~
N.N. Keshwani, R.N. Keshwani and Raj Kumar Gupta for the •
Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 9222-25 of 1981.

Petitioner-in-person (Inder Mohan Lal Tandon) in W.P. No. Y
9226 of 1981. ·
F
V.C. Mahajan, G.L. Sanghi, C.V. S. Rao, Kitty Kumaramang-
lam, Randhir Jain and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G SINGH, J. By means of these petitions under Article 32 of the -..(
Constitution the petitioners claim relief for quashing Railway Board's
circular/letter No. E (NG) l/69/PMI-180 dated 2nd July, 1970 and No.
E (NG) I-80-SR6-39 dated 28th November, 1981. They further claim
relief for the issue of writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the
respondent, Railway Authorities, from altering or issuing seniority list
H in pursuance of the Railway Board's circular dated 28th November,
YASHBIR SINGH v. U.0.1. [SINGH, J.) 1023
~
1981 and to maintain the previous seniority list issued in 1968 for the A
purpose of promotions, confirmation and further advancement.

In the Indian Railways, initial recruitment of Train Examiners,
used to be made in the entry Grade D in the pay scale of Rs.100-185.
Prior to 1st April, 1966 recruitment to Grade D of Train Examiners
~
was made from two sources (1) by promotion of skilled artisans work- B
ing in the lower grade, (2) hy direct recruitment of apprentices having
completed prescribed four years' training. 50 per cent of the vacancies

""
were filled by apprentices while the remaining 50% of the vacancies
used to be filled by promotion of skilled artisans. Promotion from
- entry Grade D was made to next higher Grade C of Train Examiners in
the pay scale of Rs.150-225 and later these grades were revised and the
y scale of D grade was raised to Rs.180-240 and that of C Grade to Rs.205- c
280. Promotion to Grade C used to be made on the basis of seniority-
cum-suitability without any distinction of promotee or direct recruits.
Because there was increase in the work load of Train Examiners the
Railway Board took steps to re-organise the cadre of Train Examiners.
With that end in view; it issued a notification on 27. 10.1965 which D
~ directed that vacancies in the entry grade of Train Examiners in the
scale of Rs.120-i40 should not be filled from apprentice Train Exami-
ners upto 50 per cent as hitherto, but should exclusively be filled by
promotion of skilled artisans. It further provided that vacancies in the
next higher grade C (in the scale of Rs.205-280) should be filled from
._
amongst the Train Examiners working in the grade of Rs.180-240 to E
the extent of 20%. The remaining 80 per cent vacancies were to be
filled by direct recruitment of apprentice Train Examiners who may
have successfully completed prescribed training. Paragraph 2 of the
l notification provided that the apprentice Train Examiners recruited on
or from 1.4.1966 shall be given training for a period of 5 years and
from the same date artisans recruited in the lower grade as apprentice F
Train Examiners shall be given 'in service' training for a period of
three years. The circular upgraded 50% of the existing posts of Train
Examiners from Grade D to Grade C in the scale of Rs.205-280 which
were earlier earmarked for Apprentice Train Examiners. The notifica-
tion further directed that with effect from 1.4.1966 all the apprentice

"
Train Examiners on successful completion of their training should be G
straightaway brought to the scale Rs.205-280 instead of being first
absorbed in the scale of Rs.180-240 as was being done prior to the issue
of the notification. Apprentice Train Examiners who were undergoing
training on the date of the issue of notification, were directed to be
brought to the working posts before 1.4.1966 and they were allowed
stipend in the scale of Rs.180-240 during the period of their training H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A and their periocl of training was increased from four years to five years.
On the completion of the training they were straightaway posted in
Grade C in the scale of Rs.205-280. Those apprentice Train Examiners
who had already been or may be absorbed in the scale of Rs.180-240
upto 31.3 .1966 were directed to be accommodated first in the scale of
B Rs.205-280 in Grade C against the quota of 80% vacancies reserved for i
them, and they were not required to undergo selection before being
absorbed in that grade. •-.j
,
The effect of the Railway Board's circular dated October 27,
1965 was that the existing apprentice Train Examiners who had al-

C
ready been absorbed in Grade D by March 31, 1966 were first accom-
modated in Grade C against 80% of the vacancies reserved for them
without undergoing any selection, while 20% of the vacancies reserved y
-
for the departmental Train Examiners, were to be filled by artisan
promotees by selection and not on the basis of seniority-cum-suita-
bility. Although apprentices as well as artisan promotees constituted
0 one integrated class in Grade D but promotee artisans were treated
differently for promotion to Grade C. Roshan Lal Tandon who was -).
promoted from artisan class to Grade D, filed a writ petition in this
Court challenging the validity of the notification dated 27-10-1965 on
the ground that a part of the notification which gave favourable treat-
ment to apprentice Train Examiners was violative of Articles 14 and 16
E of the Constitution. In that writ petition a Constitution Bench of this
Court on August 14, 1967 in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, .31(_
[1968] 1 S.C.R. 185 held that artisans and apprentices recruited from
two sources to Grade D were integrated into one class and no discrimi-
nation could thereafter be made in favour of recruits from one source
as against the recruits from the other sourc,e in the matter of promo- y
F tion to Grade C. Apprentice Train Examiners who were recruited
directly to Grade D as Train Examiners formed one common class
with the skilled artisans who were promoted to Grade D as Train
Examiners and thereafter no favoured treatment could be given to the
apprentice Train Examiners merely because they were directly
recruited as Train Examiners, no discrimination could be made against
G the latter merely because they were promotees. The Court emphasised . .I
that once the direct recruits and promotees are absorbed into one ,.
cadre, they formed one class and they could not be discriminated for
the purpose of further promotion to higher Grade C. On these findings
the Court allowed the writ petition and issued a mandamus directing
the Railway Board not to give effect to the impugned part of the
H circular which was as under:-
YASHBIR SINGH v. U.0.!. [SINGH, J.J 1025

"The Appren!ice T.X. Rs. who have already been or will
A
be absorbed in scale Rs.180-240 upto 31.3.1966 should first
be accommodated in scale Rs.205-280 against the quota of
80% vacancies reserved for them. Such staff should not be
required to undergo a 'Selection' before being absorbed in
that grade. The upgraded vacancies in scale Rs.205-280 left
~·
over after earmarking those' for the apprentices under B
training on 2.4.66 should be filled by promotion of T.X.
1'' Rs. in scale Rs.180-240 on a selection basis. While comput-
ing the number of posts available for promotion of T.X.

-
Rs. in scale of Rs.180-240 the vacancies likely to occur
during the period of apprenticeship of the apprentices
under training as on 1.4.1966 should also be taken into
account. In other words, it would be necessary to keep in c
"(
reserve only the number of posts equal to the number of
apprentices under training as on 1.4.1966, who cannot be
absorbed in the anticipated vacancies which will arise by
the time they qualify."
D

" The Railway Board with a view to implement the decision of this
Court and to remove the anomaly which had been pointed out by this
Court issued circular/letter No. N (NG) 65 PMl/86 elated 13.9.1968 anne-
xures III to the affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Railway Ad-
ministration. Paragraph 1 of the letter refers to this Court's judgment
\.._ in Roshan Lal Tandon's case and also to that portion of the Railway E
Board's circular dated October 27, 1965 which had been struck down
by the Court and the interim orders issued by the Court restraining the
Railway authorities from implementing the Circular dated October 27,
y 1965 during the pendency of the writ petition. Paragraph 2 and 3 of the
Circular dated September 13, 1968 stated that in view of the judgment
of the Supreme Court the Board have decided that vacancies in the F
grade of Rs.205-280 (after taking into account the upgrading of 50 per
cent of posts in the scale of Rs.180-240- to 205-280 less the number of
posts required for absorbing Apprentice Train Examiners undergoing
the enhanced period of training of five years on April l, 1966, should
be filled by selection from amongst Train Examiners in the scale
\. Rs.180-240 as on March 31, 1966 irrespective of whether they were G
initially recruited as Apprentice Train Examiners or were promoted
from lower grades. The Board desired that Railway Administrations
should take immediate steps to ensure that proper selections are held
for which all TXRs in scale of Rs.180-240 are consi.dered. It had come
to Board's notice that prior to the issue of the stay order, persons
originally recruited as Apprentice Train Examiners who were in the H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A scale of Rs.180-240 have been promoted to the grade Rs.205-280 in
pursuance of Board's Jetter dated 27.10.1965. The Board decided that
in view of the Supreme Court's judgment, such promotions should be
treated as null and void and the vacancies should be properly filled as
mentioned in para 2 of the circular.

B
i
The Railway Board issued another circular No. E.(NG)i/69/PMI-
180 dated 2nd July 1970 laying down procedure for filling of posts of
Train Examiners and upgradation of posts. It directed that vacancies
arising in Grade C after 1.4.1966 to the extent of 50% shall be
maintained in that grade and the remaining 50% shall be down graded
to the scale of Rs.180-240 to be filled by promotion of skilled artisans.
C It further directed that 50% of the vacancies in Grade C should be
-
filled by direct recruitment of apprentice Train Examiners with five
years' training to the extent of 80% thereof and the remaining 20% by
promotees from Grade D as laid down in paragraph l of the Railway
Board's circular dated 27.10.1965. This procedure was directed to be
followed till the cadre position was normalised and the excess in the
D Grade of Rs.205-280 were eliminated. Paragraph 2 of the circular
further directed that those promoted to Grade C in the scale of Rs.205-
280 as on April 1, 1966 will be assigned seniority amongst themselves
in the order of their inter se seniority in Grade of Rs.180-240 for the
purposes of confirmation in that grade and also for further advance-
ment and they will rank senior to those recruited as apprentice Train
E Examiners with five years training and appointed after 1.4.1966 in the
Grade of Rs. 205-280. The result of the circular was that all those
promotees who had been appointed to Grade D prior to 1.4. 1966
stood absorbed in Grade C and they were granted seniority in that
Grade with retrospective effect viz. with effect from April l, 1966.

F Later the Railway Board took a policy decision to abolish the
entry Grade D of Train Examiners in the pay scale of Rs.180-240, and
in order to implement that decision it issued circular/letter
No. PC-69-PS-5 TR-1, New Delhi dated 30th October, 1972, abolish-
ing the entry Grade D of Train Examiners. and placing the incumbents
of that Grade en masse in Grade C in the scale of Rs.205-280 with
G effect from 1.11.1972. Paragraph 2 of the circular directed that the pay
of the staff brought from Grade D (Rs.180-240) to Grade C (205-280)
will be fixed under Rule 2017 A(III) read with Rule 2019 II. As all the
incumbents of Grade D in the scale of Rs.180-240 were placed en
masse in the higher grade C in the scale of Rs.205-280, a provisional
seniority list of Grade C Train Examiners. working in Delhi Division
H was prepared on 16th November 1981. In that seniority list petitioners
YASHBIR SINGH v. U.0.1. (SINGH, J.] 1027

were shown senior to some of the respondents as the seniority was not
A
determined in accordance with Rule 302 of the Railway Establishment
Manual. This seniority list was not prepared in accordance with the
prescribed criteria as had been done in other divisions. The Railway
Board issued a circular No. E(NG) 1-80-SR6-39 dated 28. 11. 1981
directing that Delhi Division should also fall in line with other divi-
sions of Northern Railway and the seniority of the Train Examiners B
appointed between 1.4.1966 to 1. 11.1972 should be prepared in
accordance with the existing practice viz. on the basis of the date of
appointment in particular grade. In pursuance to that direction senio-

- rity of Train Examiners of Grade C placed in that Grade between
1.4.1966 to I. 11. 1972 was published in 1981 by the authorities of the
Delhi Division of Northern Railway. After inviting objections, the
seniority list was finally published in December, 1982. In that seniority C
list the petitioners were shown junior to Respondents Nos. 5 to 10,
who were placed above the petitioners. Aggrieved the petitioners have
challenged the validity of the seniori.ty list also by raising additional
grounds in the writ petitions.
D
Before we consider the submissions made on behalf of petition-
ers it would be appropriate to refer to comparative position of peti-
tioners and the respondents Nos'. 5 to 10 with regard to their date of
entry in service as Train Examiners in Grade D and Grade C. The
relevant position is as under:
E

Name Date of entry
Grade D Grade C
Rs.180-240 Rs.205-280

I. YashbirSingh, Petitioner. 29.4.1986 I. II. 1972 F
2. l.M. Lal Tandon, Petitioner. 19.6.1966 I. I 1.1972
3. Hira Lal Kapoor, Petitioner. 29.4.1966 I. I 1.1972
4. Harbhajan Singh, Petitioner. 16.8.1966 1.11.1972
5. Som Dutt Sharma, Petitioner. 29.4.1966 1.11.1972
6. A.K. Sharma, Respondent 5, 5. 9.1967
y 7. V.K. Chandhok, Respondent 6, 25. 2.1968 G
8. R.N. Verma, Respondent 7, JO. 8.1968
9. B.D. Maglani, Respondent 8, 22. 4.1969
10. Dev Raj Sharma, Respondent 9, 21. 5.1970
11. K.N.Sharma, Respondent 10, 9. 2.1971

The above chart shows that Respondents Nos. 5 to 10 who be- H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.
,..(
A long to group of apprentice Train Examiners were directly placed to
working posts in Grade C after completion of five years training in
accordance with the Railway Board's circular dated 2nd July, 1970, on
the respective dates shown in Column 3, which indicates that each one
of them had been placed in Grade C prior to 1.11.1972, while the
B petitioners were placed in Grade C with effect from 1.11.1972, in i
pursuance of the Railway Board's circular dated 30.10.1972. Since the
Respondents Nos. 5 to 10 were appointed to Grade C earlier in time --,J
and as the petitioners were placed in Grade C later, they were shown
jljnior to the Respondents in the seniority list. No valid objection can
be raised against respondents' seniority. Further in the seniority list all
those promotees who had been placed in Grade C with effect from
c April l, 1966 under the Railway Board's circular dated July 2, 1970
were shown senior to the petitioners. Since the petitioners were not )'
-
granted seniority with retrospective effect in Grade C as wa_s done in
the case of those who were promoted under the Circular dated July 2,
1970 they have assailed the Constitutional validity of Railway Board's
D circular dated July 2, 1970.
Jo.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Railway
Board's circular dated July 2, 1970 was illegal and unconstitutional for
variety of reasons. Firstly, the Railway Board had no authority in law
to grant seniority with retrospective effect to all those promotees who
E had been placed in Grade C with effect from April 1, 1966 in pur-
suance of the circular dated July 2, 1970. Secondly, the Railway Board
practised discrimination between the promote.es forming the same
class of Grade D with regard to seniority in Grade C. He contended
that under the circular dated July 2, 1970 promotees belonging to
~
--
y
Grade D (like the petitioners) were granted seniority in Grade C on
'
F their promotion to that grade with retrospective effect from the date of
their appointment in Grade D and not from the date of their appoint-
men! or placement in Grade C whereas the petitioners who form the
same class have not been granted the same benefit, instead their
seniority has been determined with effect from the date of their entry
in Grade C. The petitioners and all those who had been appointed in
G Grade D prior to April 1, 1966 and promoted to Grade C formed the f
same class and yet they have been treated differently without any
rational basis. The petitioners were also recruited in 1966 and they all
had completed service of more than 4 years approximately as Train
Examiners in Grade D on November 30, 1972 when the circular was
issued but they have not been given seniority in Grade C wjth
H retrospective effect as was done under the circular dated July 2, 1970.
YASHBIR SINGH v. U.0.1. [SINGH, J.] 1029
~
We have given our anxious consideration to these submissions A
but we do not find any merit in the same. The petitioners have chal-
lenged validity of the Railway Board's circular dated July 2, 1970 in
1981 after 11 years. All the petitioners were in service on the date that
circular was issued and they were aware that their colleagues (pro·
motees belonging to Grade D) were placed in Grade C and they had
~ been granted seniority with retrospective effect but none of them cha!- B
,.. lenged the validity of the circular. Now petitioners cannot be permit·
ted to challenge the validity of that circular after 11 years. If the
petitioners were aggrieved by the Railway Board's circular dated July
2, 1970 they should have challenged the same within a reasonable
- period of time which they did not do so. It is well settled that anyone
who may feel aggrieved with an administrative order or decision
c
'f affecting his right should act with due diligence and promptitude and
not sleep over the matter. Raking of old matters after a long time is
likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties and it
would create insecurity and instability in the service which would
affect its efficiency. The petitioners are therefore not entitled to
challenge the validity of the Railway Board's circular dated July 2, D
"" 1970 after 11 years and their challenge is bound to fail on this ground
alone.

We have considered the merit of the submission also but we find
no legal or constitutional infirmity in the Circular dated July 2, 1970.

-
~
~ There was increase in the work of carriage and wagons examination, as E
more complicated type of rolling stock was available with the Indian
Railways. In order to reorganise the cadre of Train Examiners and to
cope with the increased work load the Railway Board by its notifica-
-( tion dated 27th October, 1965 reorganised the cadre. It directed that
I
vacancies in Grade D were to be exclusively filled by promotion fmm
amongst skilled artisans and direct recruits were to be appointed F
straightaway to Grade C after completion of training of five years.
Validity of the notification was challenged before this Court in Roshan
Lal Tandon's case and the implementation of the circular was stayed.
This Court struck down only a portion of the notification which has
been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment but the rest of the
\.- directions contained in the notification remained unaffected, including G
the direction that with effect from April l, 1966 all the Train Exami-
ners on successful completion of their training shoiild be straightaway
brought on to the scale of Rs.205-280 instead of being first absorbed in
Grade D. Similarly further direction that those apprentices who were
undergoing training on April l, 1966 shall undergo five years' training
instead of four years and during their training they would receive H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.
-(
A stipend m the scale of Rs.180-210 and after completion of their train-
ing they will straightaway be appointed to Grade C. After the judg-
men! of this Court, the Railway Board reconsidered the matter and
with a view to implement the decision of this Court and to further carry
out its policy of reorganisation as initiated under its circular dated
October 27, 1965 it issued directions under its circular dated July 2,
B 1970, which is as under:
i
·.i,
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAY

c
(RAILWAY BOARD)
No. E(NG) i/69/PMl-180 New Delhi
-
Dated 2nd July 1970 r
TheGMs.
All India Railways.
Sub: Procedure for filling up posts of TXRs upgrada-
D tion of. ~

Ref. Rly. Boards letter No. E (NG) 165 PMI-86
dated 27. to.1965 and 13.9.1968. The Board have been
receiving representations from the staff working in the
category of TXRs in scale Rs.180-240 (AS) against the pro-
E cedure prescribed for filling vacancies arising out of upgra- ~
dation of 50% of posts in scale Rs. 180-240 (AS) to Rs.205- r
280 w.e.f. 1.4.1966. It has been decided in modification of
previous orders that all the TXRs working in Grade 180-
240 consisting of both App. TXRs. of 4 years Trg. and 'r
promotees from ranks as on l.4. 1966 should be promoted
F en masse to the grade Rs.205-280 irrespective of the quota of
vacancies reserved for promotees, the excess to the permis-
sible re-organised cadre strength in the grade Rs.205-280
being worked off gradually by wastage such as retirement
etc. in grade Rs.205-280 (AS).

G After 1.4.1966 50% of the vacancies arising in grade
Rs.205-280 should be maintained in that grade and the re-
maining 50% will be down graded to the scale of Rs .190-
"
240 to be filled by promotion of skilled artisans. The 50% of
the vacancies in grade Rs.205-280 (AS) should be filled by
direct recruitment of App. TXRs with 5 years training to
H the extent of 80% thereof and the remaining 20% by pro-
YASHBIR SINGH v. U.0.1. [SINGH, J.] 1031

motees from grade Rs.180-240 as laid down in paragraph 1 A
(ii)(a) of Board's letter No. E(NG) 165 PMI-86 dated
27. 10.1965. This procedure will continue to be followed till
the cadre position is normalised and the excess in the grade
of Rs.205-280 eliminated.

(2) The staff promoted to the grade Rs.205-280 as on B
1.4.1966 will be assigned seniority amongst themselves in
the order of their inter-se-seniority in the grade Rs.180-240
for the purpose of confirmation in that grade and also for
further advancement. They will all rank senior to those

- recruited as App. TXRs with 5.years Trg. and appointed
after 1.4.1966 to the grade Rs.205-280. C

(3) The above instructions may please be implemented
immediately and a report submitted to the Board in due
course.
Pl. ack. receipt
D
Sd -
(O.D.Sharma)
Asstt. Director(E) Rly Board"

The circular issued three directions, firstly, it directed that all the
Train Examiners working in Grade 180-240 consisting of both E
apprentice Train Examiners and promotees from rank as on April 1,
1966 should be promoted en masse to Grade C irrespective of quota
reserved for promotees. Secondly, it directed that after April l, 1966
vacancies in Grade C to the extent of 50 per cent should be maintained
in that Grade while the remaining 50 per cant should be down graded
to Grade D to be exclusively filled by promotion of skilled artisans, it F
further directed that 50 per cent of the vacancies in Grade C should be
filled up by direct recruitment of apprentices with five years training to
the extent of 80 per cent thereof and remaining 20 per cent of vacan-
cies from Grade D. Thirdly, it issued direction with regard to assigning
seniority to the staff promoted to Grade Con April l, 1966. They were
to carry their inter se seniority in Grade D for the confirmation and G
also for further advancement. It further directed that the promotees
will rank senior to the direct recruits in Grade C appointed after April
1, 1966.

These directions were issued with the object and purpose of
achieving the reorganisation which had been initiated by Railway H
1032 SVPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 3 S.C.R.

A Board under its circular dated October 27, 1965. The scheme of
reorganisation of cadre as eontemplated by the circular dated October
27, 1965 was to be carried out with effect from April 1, 1966 and that
date was followed by the Railway Board in its circular dated January 2,
1970. The petitioners' submission that the date April 1, 1966 was fixed
in arbitrary manner without any basis is untenable. The promotees
B who were placed in the higher Grade C with effect from April 1, 1966
were undoubtedly senior to the petitioners in Grade D, none of the
petitioners' rights were affected by their promotion. The reorganisa-
tion of the cadre of Train Examiners and the promotion to Grade C

C
could not be completed on account of the pendency of Roshan Lal
Tandon's case in this Court and the stay orders issued therein. After
the decision of this Court the Railway Board implemented the scheme
and it made promotion with retrospective effect. As the promotion to
-
Grade Chad been stayed, during the pendency of the writ petition in
this Court the Railway Board was justified in granting promotion with
effect from April I, 1966 as initially reorganisation was proposed to be
implemented with effect from that date as is clear from Railway
D Board's notification dated October 27, 1965. The Railway Board
promoted the staff with retrospective effect because on accourit of stay
orders issued by the Court those entitled to be promoted with effect
from April I, 1966 could not be promoted. The petitioners cannot
claim parity with those who had been promoted to Grade C under the

-
Railway Board's circular dated July 2, 1970 as they do not belong to
E that class. Equality can be claimed among equals and not with un-
equals. Those persons who had acquired right of promotion under the
Railway Board's notification dated October 27, 1965 could not be
promoted on account of litigation, they formed a distinct class and the
petitioners cannot equate themselves with them as they were not en-
titled to promotion under the notification dated October 27, 1965. The
F petitioners have no right in law to claim similar treatment. There is
therefore no merit in the petitioners' plea of discrimination. Validity
of the Railway Board's circular dated July 2, 1970 on the ground of it
beinE discriminatory was raised before the Delhi High Court in writ peti-
tion No. 1147 of 1971, Chaman Lal and others v. Union of India and
others decided on May 20, 1980. A Division Bench of that Court
G upheld its validity. In another writ petition No. 2834 of 1981 Kewal
Krishan v. Union of India and others again the validity of Railway
Board's circular dated July 2, 1970 as well as the validity of Railway
Board's circular dated January 28, 1981 was upheld by a Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court on December 15, 1981.

H Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the validity of the
YASHBIR SINGH v. U.0.1. (SINGH. J.] 1033

Railway Board's circular dated November 1, 198 l which directed the A
Delhi Division to fall in line with other divisions of Northern Railways
for determining the seniority of Train Examiners. It appears that
seniority of Train Examiners in Grade C working in other Divisions of
Northern Railway was determined, from the date of appointment in
hhat Grade, in accordance with Rule 302 of the Railway Establishment
Manual but in Delhi Division that practice was not followed. The B
'f Railway Board directed the Delhi Division to fall in line with other
divisions in determining the seniority of Train Examiners. Learned
counsel for the p~titioners urged that since under the Railway Board's
.. circular dated October 30, 1972 the petitioners were placed en masse in
Grade C in the scale of R.s.205-280 they are entitled to seniority with
-{ effect from the date of their appointment in Grade D and if that be so, C
they would rank senior to Respondents Nos. 5 to IO who were
appointed later in time. At this stage it would be profitable to have a
glance at Railway Board's circular dated October 30, 1972 which is as
under:

"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA D
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)

No. PC-69/PS-5/TR- l New Delhi dated 30. 10. 1972

- The General Managers,
All India Railways.

Sub: Upgrading of the initial scale of pay of Train
E

Examiners on Railways.

Ref: Board's letters No. (l) E(NG) 65 PM! '86 dated F
27.10. 1965.
(ii) No. E (NG) 165 PMI 86 dated 13.9. 1968.
(iii) No. E(NG) 1-69 PM -1 '130 dated 2. 7. 1970.

The Board have considered the communications re-
ceived from the National Federation of Indian Railwaymen G
and the All India Railwaymen's Federation regarding the
procedure prescribed for filling and maintenance of vacan-
cies in the Train Examiners' cadre as envisaged in the
above mentioned letters and more. particularly their
demand for abolition of the grade of Rs.180-240. It has now
been decided in modification of existing orders that the H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 3 S.C.R.

A initial grade of TXRs, viz. Rs.180-240 should be abolished
and all the TXRs working in that grade should be placed en
masse in the grade Rs.205-280 w.e.f. 1.11. 1972. It has been
decided that vacancies in grade Rs.205-280 should here-
after be filled in the following manner:-

B (i) 40% of vacancies to be filled by promotion or
Artisans;

(ii) 20% of vacancies to be reserved for existing Artisans

c
going as Apprentice TXRs, with age relaxation upto
35 years; and -
(iii) 40% of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment of
Apprentices TXRs from the open market through
Railway Service Commissions.

2. lay of the staff brought on from grade Rs.180-240
D (AS) to Grade Rs.205-280(AS) will be fixed under Rule ~·
2017(a)(ii) read with rule 2019 PII.

3. This has the approval of the President.

Sd/- .
E (R.S. Bharal) ~
Dy. Director, Establishment (P & A)
Railway Board

No. PC-69/PS 5/TP-1 New Delhi dated 30.10.72

F Copy of the FA & CAOS, and Chief Auditors of All
Indian Railways.

Sd/-
(R.S. Bharal)
Dy. Director, Establishment (P & A).-1
G Railway Board.''

By the aforesaid circular the entry grade of Train Examiners in
the scald of .Rs.180-240 was abolished and all the Train Examiners
working in that Grade were placed in the scale of Rs.205-280 with
effect from November 1, 1972. In pursuance to that decision, petition-
H ers were included in Grade C with effect from November 1, 1972 and
YASHBIR SINGH v. U.0.1. (SINGH, J,j' 1035

therefore they ate entitled to seniority with effect from that date in A
Grade C. In the absence of any statutory rule or directions petitioners
are not entitled to claim seniority in Grade C with reference to the
date of their appointment in Grade D. The chart indicating respective
dates of entry of petitioners and the Respondents 5 to 10 in Grade C as
t- eictracted in the earlier part of the judgment would show that Respon-
dents Nos. 5 to 10 were appointed in Grade C earlier in time than the B
t petitioners, therefore they are entitled to be senior to the petitioners.
It is not disputed that Rule 302 of the Railway Establishment Manual
lays down a general rule for determining seniority from the date of

- appointment in a. particular grade and the petitioners have not placed
any rule or instruction before us to support their case. Seniority ordi-
i narily reflects length of service in a particular cadre or grade. It is C
generally regulated by service rules or in the absence of Rules by
executive instructions. By and large, such rules provide for determin-
ing seniority with reference to the date of appointment but there are
instances where rules provide for determining seniority with reference
to date of confirmation. Normally, when a person is promoted or
~ placed in a higher grade his seniority is determined with reference to D
the date of such promotion or placement unless the relevant rules
provide to the contrary. Seniority in the lower grade has no meaning
for determining seniority in the higher grade except for determining
inter se seniority of promotees. Rule 302 contains a general Rule and
there is no exception to it. In the absence of any contrary provision in
"- the Rules, the general rule of seniority as laid down by Rule 302 must E
prevail.

Learned counsel then urged that the seniority list of Grade D
had been prepared in 1968 and in that seniority list petitioners were
shown senior to some of the respondents and that seniority could not
legally be disturbed. It appears that in the seniority list prepared in F
1968 the names of some of the respondents was shown in Grade D on
the assumption that they held posts of Train Examiners in that Grade.
It was done on a wrong assumption. Admittedly, the Respondents
Nos. 5 to 10 were apprentices who were undergoing training, and in
).-accordance with the directions contained in the Railway Board notifi-
cation dated October 27, 1965 they were entitled to appointment in G
Grade C straightaway on completion of their training. They were no
doul:)t drawing stipend at the rate of Rs.180-240 which was the scale
prescribed for Grade D but nonetheless they did not belong to Grade
D as they were not appointed to any of the posts in that Grade. Their
names therefore could not be included in the seniority list of Grade D.
Petitioners cannot draw any advantage from the mistake committedfo H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 3 S.C.R.

A including the Respondents name in the seniority list of 1968.

Learned counsel then urged that Hira Lal Kapoor, one of the
petitioners was promoted on June 23, 1981 on the basis of his seniority
in Grade D, therefore, other petitioners are also entitled to theit
seniority with effect from the date of their appointment in Grade D. In -4
B the written submission filed on behalf of Respondents it is stated that
the Deputy Regional Manager of Delhi had granted promotion to '1
H.L. Kapoor on June 2, 1981 on ad-hoc and temporary basis. On
receipt of representations and.protests from Respondent No. 5 Ashok
Kumar Sharma and the General Secretary, Northern Railway Men's
Union, order of promotion issued in favour of H.L. Kapoor was can-
e celled and Sh. A.K. Sharma, Respondent No. 5 was promoted. Since
the petitioners were placed in higher Grade C with effect from )'-
-
November 1, 1972 they are entitled to seniority with reference to date
of their placement in that Grade and they have no legal right to claim
seniority in that Grade against those who were appointed to that
Grade before November l, 1972.
D
Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Lok Sabha ques-
tions asked by Sh. Suraj Bhan, M.P. and the answers given to those·
questions with regard to seniority of direct recruits and promotees,
(Annexures K of the petition). The petitioners have asserted that in
reply to the Lok Sabha questions, it was clearly stated by the Railway
E Administration that direct recruit Train Examiners posted on working .~
posts before November 1, 1972 in Grade C in the scale of Rs.205-280
will not be treated senior to the Train Examiners promoted en masse
with effect from November l, 1972. In the counter affidavit filed by
the respondents it is stated that the reply to the Lok Sabha questions as
contained in Annexure K to the petition is of no relevance as the said
F questions were not admitted at all and no reply was given by the
Railway Board. It appears that the General Manager had prepared a
draft reply to the Lok Sabha questions but the reply had not been
finalised by the Railway Board which is the competent authority. The
Railway Board could have modified the draft of the reply as prepared
by the General Manager but since the question was not admitted no ~
G reply was sent to the Lok Sabha. The petitioner can therefore draw no
support from Annexure K to the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners then urged that the petition-
ers were not promoted to Grade C instead they were placed en masse
in Grade C on the abolition of Grade D therefore the date of their
H seniority should not be determined from the date of their placement in
YASHBIR SINGH v. U.0.1. [SINGH, J.] 1037
~ •
Grade C instead they are entitled to their seniority with reference to A
the date of their appointment in Grade D. He placed reliance on the
directions, contained in paragraph 2 of the Railway Board's circular
dated October 30, 1972 that the petitioners' salary in Grade C shall be
fixed in accordance with Rule 2017 R-II read with rule 2019-Il. He
.,._ urged that if the petitioners were treated to have been promoted to
B
Grade C with effect from November l, 1972 in that case their salary
could have been fixed in accordance with Rule 2018 (R-II) (PR-22/C).
r It is true that the petitioners were not promoted from Grade D to
Grade C instead Grade D was abolished and the petitioners and all
other incumbents holding posts ih Grade D were placed en masse in
- Grade C and the Railway Board issued directions that their salary shall
be fixed in accordance with the Rule 2017 read with Rule 2018 (R-Il) c
-( (PR-22/C). Whether petitioners were promoted to Grade C or whether
they were placed en masse in that Grade does not make any difference
so far as their entry to Grade C is concerned, in either case, they
entered Grade C with effect from November 1, 1972. Reference to a
particular rule for determining their pay in the higher grade cannot
D
"(
change the criteria for determining seniority. The Railway Board had
never issued any direction for determining the petitioners seniority
with reference to their date of appointment in the initial entry grade.
The petitioners have failed to show that any person junior to them has
been made senior to them. Their grievance is without any substance.
E
~ In view of the above discussion we find no merit in the petitions.
We accordingly dismiss the same with costs. All interim orders stand
discharged.

Petitions dismissed.
1 S.L.