Case analysis on Dhole Govind Sahebrao & Ors Vs Union of India

 DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA

Supreme Court of India

Dhole Govind Sahebrao & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 March, 2015

Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, S.A. Bobde

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2485-2490 OF 2010

Relevant Statutes: Central Excise and Land Customs Department, Recruitment Rules, 1979, Article 309 of the Constitution of India, States Reorganisation Act, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, Article 16 of the Indian Constitution.

Brief facts: Dispute amongst employees of the customs and central excise department regarding seniority gave rise to the filing of the suit. The controversy, in this case, emerged because of the reconstitution process of the cadres. Out of the existing ministerial cadre, a separate cadre was constituted for discharging electronic data processing duties. It became a necessity after the introduction of computerization by the department for its functioning. But the computerization which was initiated on 1991-92, got fully implemented on 2002-03.

After the implementation and success of computerization, a separate cadre was formed and as a result, it got amalgamated with the existing ministerial cadre. And those who were originally at an inferior position in the list got superiority over others and as a result of their promotion they got the seniority and subsequently acquired a higher position. But the confusion and question regarding the reasons for the bifurcation and re-amalgamation of cadres remained. So, the very fact that who is that the senior consistent with the seniority list the appeals filed by those that moved to the cadre of knowledge entry operators from the ministerial cadre, and thereupon amalgamated within the cadre of Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants should be allowed or not?

Issues: whether the employees that are placed in inferior positions in the seniority list of the original ministerial cadre, acquired superiority over their counterparts which is the consequence of promotion of the cadre of data entry operators, which resulted in getting a higher position in seniority, over and above those who were senior to them in the original ministerial cadre will be made senior or not?

The ratio of the Case: Ratio of the court: Before arriving or making the decision the honourable supreme court of India heard from the learned counsel of both the sides. the computerization which was initiated on 1991-92, got fully implemented on 2002-03. After the implementation and success of computerization, the separate cadre was formed and as a result it got amalgamated with the existing ministerial cadre. And those who were originally at inferior position in the list got superiority over others and as a result of their promotion they got the seniority and subsequently acquired a higher position. But the confusion and question regarding the reasons of the bifurcation and re-amalgamation of cadres remained. So, the very fact that who is that the senior consistent with the seniority list the appeals filed by those that moved to the cadre of knowledge entry operators from the ministerial cadre, and thereupon amalgamated within the cadre of Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants should be allowed or not?

There was five categories of data entry operators as follows: • Data Entry Operator-A: All types of data preparation and validation including alpha-numeric data entry, graphic data entry, voice-entry, optical entry etc., and associated verification etc., on any sort of machines/equipment/instrument endowed with facilities for data entry and/or preparation for data entry and/or pre-programmed validation of entered data including key punching machine, key to magnetic media machine. • Data Entry Operator-B: additionally to those jobs mentioned for Data Entry Operator-A, Pooling, Counting, Collating, Coding, Console Operation, assisting within the preparation of Statistics, handling etc., on any sort of machine/equipment/instrument endowed with facilities for data entry or preparation for data entry and/or validation of entered data as specified under the outline for Data Entry Operator-A. • Data Entry Operator-C: additionally to those jobs and machine equipment instrument mentioned for Data Entry Operator-B, training of operators, scheduling of jobs and more skill-based validation of alpha-numeric or graphic data as determined by the requirements of the organization. • Data Entry Operator-D: additionally to those jobs mentioned for Data Entry Operator-C, programming concerning data preparation and/or validation, and for a couple of staff who are considered to have the specified aptitude and depending upon the necessity , supervision of the work of knowledge Entry Operator-A, B and C. • Data Entry Operator-E: Supervision of the work of knowledge preparation, scheduling and distribution of jobs among other Data Entry Operators, planning, scheduling, coordination and implementation of interrelated and integrated data preparation jobs, programming concerning data preparation and/or validation traction and if necessary to try to to supporting job of knowledge entry, verification, validation etc. depending on exigencies of work. Submission advanced at the hands of learned counsel, that it had been considered the validity of the merger of cadres contemplated by Rule 4 of the TA Rules, 2003 and Rule 5 of the STA Rules, 2003. The position within the present suit isn't like the position examined by this Court within the judgments mentioned hereinabove. It must be understood, that the cadre of knowledge Entry Operators, was created out of the first ministerial cadre. It is, therefore apparent, that the members of the 2 cadres were originally discharging similar duties. It is only as a consequence of the executive decision to computerize the functioning of the Customs and Central Excise department, that a separate cadre of knowledge Entry Operators came to be created. The newly created Cadre, exclusively functioned towards giving effect to the decision to computerize the functioning of the department. There was thereafter a division of duties discharged by the first members of the ministerial cadre. One cadre of employees exclusively thereafter discharged procedural duties of the department, whereas, the opposite cadre of employees exclusively thereafter discharged duties aimed toward computerization of the functioning of the department.

The decision held: The Honourable court, in this case, held that different orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal, and the common order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the High Court, are liable to be set aside. The same is accordingly hereby set aside. The appeals filed by those that moved to the cadre of knowledge Entry Operators from the ministerial cadre, and were thereupon amalgamated within the cadre of Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants, are allowed. The connected appeals preferred by the Union of India, also are allowed. In the above view of the matter, the authorities shall give effect to Rules 4 and 5 of the TA Rules, 2003 and therefore the STA Rules, 2003, respectively, without any further delay.