Supreme Court clarifies seniority rules for Railway Engineers: Prabhat Ranjan Singh vs. R.K. Kushwaha (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 7 September 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 791

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, S. Abdul Nazeer, Deepak Gupta

Can the Indian Railways set its own rules for employee seniority, or must it follow the guidelines of the central government’s Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a dispute between directly recruited and promoted engineers in the Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers (IRSSE). This case clarifies the extent of the Railways’ autonomy in setting service conditions for its employees.

The core issue revolves around the seniority of engineers in the IRSSE, a Group-A service within the Indian Railways. The dispute arose between direct recruits selected through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and officers promoted from Group-B services. The promoted officers were given a weightage of 5 years of service, which placed them above the direct recruits in the seniority list. This led to a legal challenge regarding the validity of the Railways’ seniority rules and the applicability of DoPT guidelines.

The judgment was authored by Justice Deepak Gupta, with Justices Madan B. Lokur and S. Abdul Nazeer concurring.

Case Background

The Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers (IRSSE) is a Group-A service where 50% of positions are filled by direct recruitment through the UPSC, and 50% by promotion from Group-B officers. In 2007, the Ministry of Railways requested the UPSC to fill vacancies for the 2008 Engineering Services Examination. R.K. Kushwaha, a direct recruit, joined the service on 14 December 2009 after successfully clearing the exam.

On 12 August 2014, several Group-B officers were promoted to Group-A service, effective from 8 May 2014. These officers received a weightage of 5 years of service in Group-B, as per Rule 334 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (IREM), Vol. 1. Consequently, their seniority was fixed from 8 May 2009, placing them above the direct recruits of the 2008 batch.

The seniority list issued on 12 December 2014 placed all 87 promotee officers above the direct recruits of the 2008 batch, leading to a dispute regarding the fairness and legality of this arrangement.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

R.K. Kushwaha, the direct recruit, initially filed O.A. No. 050/00260/2015 before the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), challenging the seniority given to promotee officers. The CAT directed the Chairman of the Railway Board to consider Kushwaha’s representation. The Chairman rejected Kushwaha’s plea, stating that seniority was fixed as per the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (IREM), Vol. 1, which had the President’s approval under Article 309 of the Constitution.

Subsequently, Kushwaha filed a fresh O.A. No. 460 of 2015, seeking to quash the orders of the Railway Board and to recast the seniority list based on the principles laid down in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. N.R. Parmar and the DoPT circular dated 4 March 2014. The CAT partly allowed the O.A., rejecting Kushwaha’s claim for seniority from the date of requisition (23 October 2007), holding that the N.R. Parmar case was not applicable as the reference to the year of requisition is always with reference to the vacancy year.

The CAT, however, examined the speaking order of the Chairman, Railway Board, in the context of the DoPT circular and the N.R. Parmar judgment. It held that the Railways’ policy of determining inter-se seniority based on the Date of Increment in the Time Scale (DITS) was flawed and arbitrary. The CAT directed the Railways to recast the seniority list and make necessary corrections in the IREM. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, a promotee officer, challenged this order before the Patna High Court, which was dismissed. The High Court held that the DoPT circular was binding on the Railways and that the IREM was not statutory.

Following the CAT’s directions, the Railways amended Rules 327 to 341 of the IREM, introducing the concept of ‘year of allotment’ instead of ‘DITS’. Direct recruits filed a contempt petition before the CAT, which was dismissed. The CAT held that its order was about removing arbitrariness due to DITS and bringing it in line with the concept of vacancy year/allotment year. The direct recruits then challenged this order in the Patna High Court, which was transferred to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of the dispute involves the interpretation and application of the following:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the President or Governor to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.
• Indian Railways Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. 1: This manual contains rules regarding the service conditions of railway employees. Rule 334 of the IREM, Vol. 1, provides for granting weightage to Group-B officers promoted to Group-A services. It states:

  “334 In the case of Group ‘B’ officers permanently promoted to Junior Scale of Group ‘A’ services:
  (1)xxxxxxxxx
  (2)If two or more than two officers are promoted on the same date, the following method shall be followed to determine their inter­se seniority within the Railway:­
  (i)The relative seniority of officers of each Railway shall be in the order of their position in the panel for that Railway.
  (ii)The DITS of the above officers, shall be determined by giving weightage based on:
  (a)the year of service connoted by the initial pay on permanent promotion to Group ‘A’ service; or
  (b)half the total number of years of continuous service in Group ‘B’, both officiating and permanent;
  whichever is more, subject to a maximum of 5 years; provided that the weightage so assigned does not exceed the total non­fortuitous service rendered by the officer in Group ‘B’.”

• Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC): This is a set of codified rules for the Indian Railways, notified under Article 309 of the Constitution.
• Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961: These rules allocate business to different government departments.

The case also refers to the principle laid down in Union of India vs. N.R. Parmar, which deals with the determination of seniority between direct recruits and promotees. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) issued a circular dated 4 March 2014, based on the principles laid down in the N.R. Parmar case.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Promotee Officers):

• The appellants argued that the petition had become infructuous due to the amendment of Rules 327 to 341 of the IREM Vol-1.
• They contended that the observations of the CAT and High Court, stating that DoPT circulars are binding on the Railways and that the IREM has no statutory force, were incorrect and should be set aside.
• They argued that their seniority had to be fixed in terms of the IREM Vol-1, which provided for a maximum of 5 years weightage to promotees, as per Rules 327 to 341.

Arguments by the Respondents (Direct Recruits):

• The direct recruits argued that the IREM, which provided for weightage in seniority to promotees, was set aside by the CAT.
• They contended that by continuing to give weightage to the promotees, the contemnors had committed contempt of the CAT’s order.
• They argued that the rules providing for weightage to promotee officers were illegal and arbitrary.
• They claimed that they were entitled to seniority from the date of requisition (23 October 2007), based on the judgment in N.R. Parmar and the DoPT circular dated 4 March 2014.

Arguments by the Union of India:

• The Union of India argued that the Railways are empowered to frame their own rules.
• It contended that the IREMs are issued with the concurrence of the President of India under Article 309 of the Constitution.

The main contention of the direct recruits was that the principle laid down in N.R. Parmar case had been recognized by the DoPT in its circular dated 04.03.2014. Therefore, since the requisition was issued on 23.10.2007, they should be granted seniority from that date.

The Railways and the promotee officers argued that N.R. Parmar case was not applicable because a weightage of 5 years was to be given to the promotees. They also referred to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) (Regulations of Seniority) Rules, 1987, where State Civil Service Officers inducted into the IAS are given weightage while fixing their ‘year of allotment’.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the Railways is bound by the rules framed by the DoPT, or can it frame its own rules, and whether the IREM has statutory force?
2. Whether Shri R.K. Kushwaha, the direct recruit, had challenged the rules which provide for giving weightage in seniority to the promotee officers?
3. Whether the findings of the CAT in respect of N.R. Parmar’s case was limited to removing the arbitrariness only in respect of ‘DITS’?
4. Whether by issuing the memorandum dated 05.03.2018 amending/modifying rules 327-341, the Railways have violated the order issued by the CAT?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning for resolving the issue was as follows:

• Union of India vs. N.R. Parmar [CITATION] : The Court clarified that this case was applicable only when the recruitment year and vacancy year were the same. It rejected the direct recruits’ claim for seniority from the date of requisition, as the vacancies pertained to 2009, not 2007.
• A.K. Nigam vs. Sunil Misra [CITATION]: The Court noted that this judgment upheld the validity of granting weightage to promotees. This judgment was not considered by the CAT.
• P. Sudhakar Rao & Ors. vs. U. Govinda Rao & Ors [CITATION]: The Court did not address the issue of the validity of weightage to promotees, as it was not challenged in the original application.
• The Court interpreted Article 309 of the Constitution to affirm the Railways’ power to frame its own service rules.
• The Court interpreted the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 to clarify that the DoPT does not have jurisdiction over the Railways.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Autonomy of the Railways: The Court emphasized that the Railways have the autonomy to frame their own service rules, as they are specifically excluded from the purview of the DoPT.
• Statutory Nature of IREM: The Court recognized that the IREM has statutory force, being issued under Article 309 of the Constitution, and thus its rules are binding on railway employees.
• Limited Scope of the CAT Order: The Court clarified that the CAT’s order was limited to removing the arbitrariness associated with the ‘Date of Increment in the Time Scale’ (DITS) and did not address the validity of weightage given to promotees.
• Lack of Challenge to Rule 334: The Court noted that the direct recruits had not challenged Rule 334 of the IREM, which provides for weightage to promotees, in their original application.
• Adherence to Procedural Norms: The Court emphasized that issues must be raised and challenged properly in the original application and cannot be addressed from the back door.

The sentiment of the Court was that the Railways had the power to frame its own rules and that the direct recruits had not properly challenged the rules regarding weightage to promotees.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more influenced by the legal aspects of the case rather than the factual aspects.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on an analysis of the legal framework, the scope of the CAT’s order, and the specific issues raised by the parties. It emphasized that the Railways have the authority to frame their own rules and that the direct recruits did not properly challenge the rules regarding weightage to promotees.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the direct recruits were entitled to seniority from the date of requisition. The court held that the judgment in N.R. Parmar applies only when the recruitment year and vacancy year are the same. In this case, the vacancies pertained to 2009, while the requisition was made in 2007. The court also emphasized that the CAT’s order was limited to removing the arbitrariness in the Date of Increment in the Time Scale (DITS) and did not deal with the validity of the weightage given to promotees.

The Court also noted that the direct recruits did not challenge Rule 334 of the IREM, which provides for weightage to promotees, in their original application. Therefore, the Court refused to entertain this challenge. The Court also upheld the validity of the amended rules that introduced the concept of ‘year of allotment’ instead of ‘DITS’.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“This leaves no manner of doubt that the rules under IREM Vol.1 are also statutory rules.”

“If the direct recruit wanted to lay challenge to the policy of giving weightage to promotees then the basis for the challenge had to be made in the original application and the rule granting such weightage had to be specifically challenged in the prayer clause.”

“All that the CAT held was that instead of the ‘DITS’ being the determining factor to determine the year of promotion, the seniority would be determined with reference to the ‘year of allotment’ following the principle of IAS Rules.”

Key Takeaways

• The Indian Railways is not bound by the circulars issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) regarding service conditions of its employees.
• The Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) has statutory force and is issued under Article 309 of the Constitution.
• Seniority disputes must be challenged properly in the original application, and specific rules must be challenged directly.
• The principle laid down in N.R. Parmar case applies only when the recruitment year and vacancy year are the same.
• The Railways’ decision to amend its rules and introduce the concept of ‘year of allotment’ is valid.
• The weightage given to promotee officers was not addressed in this judgment, as it was not challenged in the original application.

Directions

The Supreme Court upheld the order of the CAT dismissing the contempt petition filed by the direct recruit, Mr. R.K. Kushwaha. Consequently, the Transferred Case No. 52/2018 i.e. Writ Petition being CWJC No. 6489/2018 before the Patna High Court was dismissed.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment does not discuss any specific amendment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Indian Railways is autonomous in framing its service rules and is not bound by the DoPT circulars. The IREM has statutory force and is binding on railway employees. The judgment clarified that the principle laid down in N.R. Parmar is applicable only when the recruitment year and vacancy year are the same. It also emphasized the importance of challenging specific rules in the original application. This case clarifies the extent of the Railways’ autonomy in setting service conditions for its employees and the statutory nature of the IREM.