UNION OF INDIA Vs. A RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter brings to the fore once again the ineptitude with which litigation is conducted quite often on behalf of the Government of India and State Governments even when important issues having lasting and wide repercussions are involved. The point in this case relates to the validity of a policy the required materials were not produced in the High Court and to overcome the adverse decision several opportunities given by us to produce the entire relevant record were not availed. The learned Additional Solicitor General informed us after several adjournments that better performance is not possible. We, therefore, concluded the hearing and proceed to decide on the available materials. It is indeed fortunate for the appellants that our conclusion is in their favour. The railway administration with its countrywide network can help to improve this situation by a genuine effort in this direction and thereby contribute also to saving of needless expense and time. We therefore, direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India.

(2.) In view of the situation indicated above, we are mentioning only those facts which are necessary for deciding this matter and which are accepted by both the sides. It is not unlikely that there may be more material in the available records of the appellants to support our conclusion.

(3.) Briefly stated the controversy in this matter relates only to the employees working in the Inspection Wing of the Production Control Organization (for short 'P.C.O.') of the Integral Coach Factory, Perambur. The grievance of these employees in the Inspection Wing is to the implementation of the circular dated 8-6-1982 of the General Manager's Office (Personnel Branch/ Fur.), Madras of the Integral Coach Factory issued in supersession of the earlier circulars on the subject with the Railway Board's approval to treat the Progress Wing alone of the P.C.O. as a separate cadre. The grievance of the employees in the Inspection Wing is that there is no reasonable basis for this classification of the Progress Wing of the P.C.O. separately denying the same benefit to those in the Inspection Wing. In short, the employees of the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. also want to be in a separate cadre like those in the Progress Wing and absorbed permanently in the P. C. O. without the risk of being reverted to the shop floor from which they had been taken and where their lien continues.