1987 INSC 0415
       Federation of Directly Appointed Officers (Suppressed) Of Indian Railways and Others

                                                           Vs

                                             Union of India and Others

                                     Writ Petitions Nos. 7900-7902 of 1982

                                        (Ranganath Misra, M. M. Dutt JJ)

                                                      14.08.1987

                                                        ORDER

1. The problem that has arisen in this group of cases is the outcome of fusion of ex-cadre Engineers
with regular cadre. At the time such fusion was permitted government decided that the ex-cadre
Engineers would be given the credit of 50 per cent of their ex-cadre service subject to a maximum
of five years, whichever is less, for fixing seniority in the cadre. We are told that the persons
involved in the ex-cadre side are now about 450. The appeal is by a group of employees of the
original cadre who do not want this benefit to be conferred upon ex-cadre Engineers. The writ
petitions are by the ex-cadre Engineers who dispute the curtailment of the total period of service for
fixing of seniority and conferment of the limited benefit.

2. At the commencement of the hearing of the writ petitions on the earlier occasion, Mr. Nariman
appeared for the cadre Engineers and pointed out that the writ petitions were barred by the rule of
res judicata as Katyani Dayal and some others belonging to the group of ex-cadre Engineers had
filed a writ petitions in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and lost. The judgment of this
Court is reported in Katyani Dayal v. Union of India ((1980) 3 SCC 245 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 380 :
(1980) 3 SCR 139). Paragraph 10 of the judgment indicates that the writ petitioners had been
permitted to sue in representative capacity. That position is being disputed now. Since we are not
disposing of the matter finally, it is not necessary to go into this question at this stage but in the
event of the matters being required to be disposed of on merit this aspect has got to be examined.
Mr. Nariman also contended that the claim made now several years after the fusion has been made
and particularly after one round of litigation was over should not be entertained on the ground of
laches. This again is an aspect which would require examination if the matter has got to be
examined on merits.

3. The other side of the picture is to conclude the matter from on a technical plea may not satisfy the
litigating employees who have been claiming for their rights to be recognised. With that end in view
we want to explore the possibilities of giving some additional benefit to the ex-cadre Engineers and
for that purpose wanted the Government of India and the Railway Board to give a sympathetic look
into the matter. We also though it appropriate for the purpose of giving this new look that the
employer must know as to what exactly would be the position of the cadre employees in regard to
their appeal. We have ascertained from the counsel for the appellant that in the event of their
existing positions under the merger scheme not being disturbed, if some advantages are conferred on
the ex-cadre Engineers the same may not be seriously objected to. But if any additional
disadvantage is brought in regard to the direct recruits that would not be accepted. This is only a
tentative basis and does not preclude the appellant in the connected appeal to raise any contention
available to the appellant therein in case the matter is ultimately to be disposed of on merits.
4. We are told that there is some reorganisation of the services in contemplation. If the matter is
considered in that backdrop, it may be possible that some posts would be available to accommodate
some of the ex-cadre Engineers in higher positions and they may yield scope for adjustment of such
people without affecting the cadre employees in their present positions. This is a matter which can
only be ascertained if the appropriate authorities in the Railway Board apply their mind to the
problem with a proper spirit and remaining cognizant of the fact that the problem is the outcome of
non-attention at the appropriate point of time. We must take it clear that the requirement to explore
this is grounded upon the consideration of extending satisfaction to the employees and we are not
proceeding on entitlement in law. This again is a problem which would not recur.

5. Mr. Mahajan for the administration wants about six to eight weeks time to have this aspect
examined and report to the court. We accordingly, adjourn these writ petitions and the appeal till
October 14, 1987. A copy of today's order may be made available to Mr. Mahajan for convenience
in obtaining instructions.

</html