1996 (5) TMI 423 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court ruling on pre-1987 Apprentices pay scale and notional promotions.

Mamad Hassam Bhagad Versus State Of Gujarat

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments granting higher pay scale to pre-1987 Apprentices and declaring the memorandum invalid. The Court upheld the ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of attachment of seven vessels/ships under Section 7A of TADA.2. Involvement of the attached ships in terrorist activities.3. Validity and interpretation of Railway Board's memorandum dated 15.5.1987 on recruitment of Traffic/Commercial Apprentices.4. Eligibility for higher pay scale under the 1987 memorandum.5. Validity of the memorandum in light of statutory provisions.6. Effect of notional promotions on eligibility for higher grades.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Attachment of Seven Vessels/Ships under Section 7A of TADA:The appeal under Section 19 of TADA challenges the judgment of the Designated Judge, Jamnagar, confirming the attachment of seven vessels/ships under Section 7A of TADA. The Designated Judge confirmed the attachment pending further investigation, emphasizing that the matter was still under investigation and expressing any opinion at this stage might cause prejudice to either party.2. Involvement of the Attached Ships in Terrorist Activities:The investigation revealed financial transactions related to the purchase of the ships in question, linked to one Haji Ismail. The District Superintendent of Police attached the ships under Section 7A of TADA. The appellants, claiming ownership, objected to the attachment, arguing that the purchases were made before Section 7A came into force and that they had never been arrested under TADA. The Designated Judge found a prima facie case for the attachment, noting that the main accused, Haji Ismail, was involved in smuggling activities and possessed arms to facilitate terrorism. The Judge concluded that the properties could be attached if reasonably believed to be derived from terrorist activities.3. Validity and Interpretation of Railway Board's Memorandum Dated 15.5.1987:The memorandum brought changes in the recruitment of Traffic/Commercial Apprentices, including a higher pay scale and a new ratio for promotions and direct recruitment. The majority of CATs allowed pre-1987 Apprentices the benefit of the higher pay scale, which was challenged by the appellant (Union of India). The memorandum was also deemed invalid by the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal.4. Eligibility for Higher Pay Scale under the 1987 Memorandum:The pre-1987 Apprentices claimed entitlement to the higher pay scale based on the 1987 memorandum. The Tribunal's majority view granting this benefit was challenged, arguing that the memorandum did not revise the pay scale for all Traffic/Commercial Apprentices but only for those in higher grades. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunals misunderstood the memorandum and the provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual.5. Validity of the Memorandum in Light of Statutory Provisions:The Ernakulam Bench held the memorandum invalid, stating that the Railway Board could not change statutory provisions through administrative instructions. The Supreme Court noted Rule 1-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, which allowed the Railway Board to issue such instructions, thus validating the memorandum.6. Effect of Notional Promotions on Eligibility for Higher Grades:Respondent Prakash Chandra Ojha claimed unjust denial of promotion to Grade-I Commercial Inspector despite being promoted to Grade-II. The Patna Bench supported his claim, but the Supreme Court held that experience for promotion must be actual, not notional, thus overturning the Patna Bench's decision.Conclusion:The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by setting aside the judgments of the Tribunals that granted the higher pay scale to pre-1987 Apprentices and declared the memorandum invalid. The Court upheld the validity of the memorandum and rejected the notion that notional promotions could count towards experience for higher grades. However, it directed that no recovery of amounts already paid should be made from the concerned respondents/appellants.