Himachal Road Transport Corpn. Conductor’s Union Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 11781 of 1996
With Civil Appeal No. 11782 of 1996
With Civil Appeal No. 11782 of 1996
Petitioner: Himachal Road Transport Corpn. Conductor’s Union
Respondent: Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 11781 of 1996
With Civil Appeal No. 11782 of 1996
With Civil Appeal No. 11782 of 1996
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 26, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 14, 16, 226 – Seniority – Cleaner-cum-conductors in Grade IV and conductors in Grade III – Both fused in 1978 – Services rendered by cleaner-cum-conductors – If can be tagged on or counted for seniority. Held that right from beginning there were two different cadres with two different grades. Hence, they cannot claim benefit of past service. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation Conduc-tors’ Union is directed against an order of the H.P. Administra-tive Tribunal, Shimla, rejecting the application of the Union. The employees under the Himachal Pradesh State Government who had been appointed as Cleaner-cum-Conductors in Grade-IV continued as such under the Corporation when the Corporation was created in the year 1974. Under the Government there were two categories of posts, namely, Conductor in Class III and Cleaner-cum-Conductor in Class IV. The qualification for appointment and pay scales were different. In 1978 there was a complete fusion and all of them became Conductors. The question for consideration is, whether in drawing up the seniority list of Conductors the services rendered as Cleaner-cum-Conductor under the Government can be tagged on? The Tribunal on consideration of the qualification for appoint-ment, the service conditions as well as all other germane factors came to hold that there is no rationale behind the claim of these Cleaner-cum-Conductors to seek the relief that their services rendered as Cleaner-cum-Conductor should be counted for the purpose of their seniority in the cadre of Conductor. The Tribun-al having rejected the application the present appeal has been preferred.
2. Mr. Mahabir Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the Union vehemently contended that these Cleaner-cum-Conductors having discharged the same duties as those of Conductors, even assuming that they were in a lower grade, their services ought to have been counted for the purpose of seniority once there is a fusion. He further contends that even the so called KLM formula which was evolved for ameliorating the grievances in a matter of fusion had not been looked into and since these Cleaner-cum-Conductors as well as the Conductors’ nature of duties were same and the responsibilities and power exercised are also same, they are entitled to claim their past services as Cleaner-cum-Conductor for being counted for the purpose of seniority as Conductors. He concedes that so far as Clauses C and D of KLM formula, namely, minimum qualification prescribed as well as the salary for the posts was different. But he contends that most of these employees did have the minimum qualification even though it might not be the prescribed one. In support of his contention that the duties that were being discharged are same, he relies upon the extract regarding duties and responsibilities of each function issued on 01.07.1976. The question for consideration is whether these Cleaner-cum-Conductors having been appointed to Grade IV post can claim the past services rendered in the said grade for the purpose of their seniority in Grade III which was the grade of Conductor to which grade they came only because of a fusion of both the cadres in the year 1978. The answer must be in negative, inasmuch as right from the inception even under the Government the post of Conductor and the post of Cleaner-cum-Conductor were borne in two different grades and belong to two different cadres and therefore by mere nomenclature, the expression “Cleaner-cum-Conductor” cannot be held to be the same as “Conductor”. In the aforesaid premises, we see no infirmity with the impugned order of the Tribunal requiring our interference. The appeal according-ly fails and is dismissed.
Civil Appeal No. 11782 of 1996
3. In view of our order in Civil Appeal No. 11781 of 1996, this appeal stands dismissed.
1. This appeal by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation Conduc-tors’ Union is directed against an order of the H.P. Administra-tive Tribunal, Shimla, rejecting the application of the Union. The employees under the Himachal Pradesh State Government who had been appointed as Cleaner-cum-Conductors in Grade-IV continued as such under the Corporation when the Corporation was created in the year 1974. Under the Government there were two categories of posts, namely, Conductor in Class III and Cleaner-cum-Conductor in Class IV. The qualification for appointment and pay scales were different. In 1978 there was a complete fusion and all of them became Conductors. The question for consideration is, whether in drawing up the seniority list of Conductors the services rendered as Cleaner-cum-Conductor under the Government can be tagged on? The Tribunal on consideration of the qualification for appoint-ment, the service conditions as well as all other germane factors came to hold that there is no rationale behind the claim of these Cleaner-cum-Conductors to seek the relief that their services rendered as Cleaner-cum-Conductor should be counted for the purpose of their seniority in the cadre of Conductor. The Tribun-al having rejected the application the present appeal has been preferred.
2. Mr. Mahabir Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the Union vehemently contended that these Cleaner-cum-Conductors having discharged the same duties as those of Conductors, even assuming that they were in a lower grade, their services ought to have been counted for the purpose of seniority once there is a fusion. He further contends that even the so called KLM formula which was evolved for ameliorating the grievances in a matter of fusion had not been looked into and since these Cleaner-cum-Conductors as well as the Conductors’ nature of duties were same and the responsibilities and power exercised are also same, they are entitled to claim their past services as Cleaner-cum-Conductor for being counted for the purpose of seniority as Conductors. He concedes that so far as Clauses C and D of KLM formula, namely, minimum qualification prescribed as well as the salary for the posts was different. But he contends that most of these employees did have the minimum qualification even though it might not be the prescribed one. In support of his contention that the duties that were being discharged are same, he relies upon the extract regarding duties and responsibilities of each function issued on 01.07.1976. The question for consideration is whether these Cleaner-cum-Conductors having been appointed to Grade IV post can claim the past services rendered in the said grade for the purpose of their seniority in Grade III which was the grade of Conductor to which grade they came only because of a fusion of both the cadres in the year 1978. The answer must be in negative, inasmuch as right from the inception even under the Government the post of Conductor and the post of Cleaner-cum-Conductor were borne in two different grades and belong to two different cadres and therefore by mere nomenclature, the expression “Cleaner-cum-Conductor” cannot be held to be the same as “Conductor”. In the aforesaid premises, we see no infirmity with the impugned order of the Tribunal requiring our interference. The appeal according-ly fails and is dismissed.
Civil Appeal No. 11782 of 1996
3. In view of our order in Civil Appeal No. 11781 of 1996, this appeal stands dismissed.
