TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (5) TMI 423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l decision. Briefly stated the facts are as under : In the Kalyanpur Police Station Crime Register No.62/93 related to a case booked for the offences punishable under sections 121, 121A, 122, 34 IPC and 25(1)(A)(D),25(1)(A)(2), 25(1)AA, 25(A)(B), 25 (A)(F) of the Arms Act, Section 20 of Wireless Telegraph Act and Sections 3,4 and 5 of TADA and Section 135(l) of the Bombay Police Act. In the course of investigation one diary of Hamir Sajan was found and it contained certain financial transactions relating to one Haji Ismail for purchasing the ships in question. The District Superintendent of Police attached those ships invoking powers under Section 7A of TADA. A report application No.1993 was filed before the learned Designated Judge seeking confirmation of attachment. The appellants claiming to be the owners of the ships in question objected to the attachment and sought revocation of such attachment before the learned Designated Judge. It was argued before the learned Designated Judge that section 7A of TADA came into force on and from 22.5.1993 and the purchases of all the ships having taken place well before that date, the provisions of TADA cannot be invoked. It was also cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d was that the property in relation to which the investigation was made must be having sources of purchase from the amount or proceeds of terrorism or by way of commission of terrorist activity. Therefore, the learned Judge found that it was not necessary or incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to attach only properties of the persons who were involved in the offence under TADA Act and that on the other hand, any property can be attached if it is reasonably believed that it was derived from the commission of any terrorist activity or was acquired by the proceeds of 'terrorism'. The learned Judge also found that 'the aforesaid party (namely the appellants herein) are related to the main smuggler Haji Haji Ismail' who is absconding and by using the funds provided by him the ships in question were purchased and so it can be said that "prima facie, doing smuggling activity of keeping and possessing latest and modern foreign made arms and ammunitions in order to cause terrorism among the Customs and Police Officers would mean that by keeping the authority such as Custom Officers or Police Personnel in constant fear due to his terrorist activities, the amount is derived from tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....35/94 20030/93 8905/96 2993/94 2359-60/94 5305/93 8699/96 11178/94 8702/96 15438/54 8697/96 17640/94 8863/96 13168/94 8726/96 14415/95 8655/96 17196/95 8698/95 18159/95 Union of India & Anr, etc. etc. V. M. Bhaskar & Qrs. etc. etc. [With CC 19260/93 in C.A. Nos.......of 1996 (arising out SLP (C) Nos. 4250-51/93, 7406/93, CC 20225/93 in C.A. No. 2570/93, C.A. No.......of 1996 (arising our of SLP(C) No.16410/93), CC 20030/93, (arising out of SLP(C) Nos.2533- 35/94, 2993/94), C.A. Nos.2359-60/94, 5305/93, C.A. Nos....of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11178/94, 15438/94, 17640/94, 13168/94, 14415/95, 17196/95, 18159/95] Union of India & Anr. etc.etc. V. M. Bhaskar & Ors. etc.etc. J U D G M E N T HANSARIA.J. This batch of appeals requires us to decide two questions both of whom are relatable to the Railway Board's memorandum dated 15.5.1987 on the subject of recruitment of Traffic/Commercial Apprentices. The two questions are: (1) the purport of the memorandum: and (2) the validity of the same. 2. There has been a cleavage of opinion among the various Central Administrative Tribunals (CATs) of the country. Most of the Tribunals have rejected the understanding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pprentices are concerned these posts were of: (1) Assistant Claims inspectors/Supervisors; (2) Assistant Commercial Inspectors; (3) Assistant Rates Inspectors (Goods and Coaching); and (4) Other Inspectors for outdoor duties. This apart, the pre - 1987 position was that in the Traffic and Commercial Departments, posts in the pay scale of ₹ 1400-2300 were being filled up to the extent of 25% by direct recruits, of which 15% were from open market and 10% from Limited Departmental Competitive Examination; and the balance 75% by promotion from lower grade. Further, the term 'Apprentices' was being actually used to cover 'direct recruits', as distinct from 'promotees'. Another thing to be noted, which again missed the Tribunals in question, is that when the pay scale of ₹ 1400-2300 was being paid to Traffic/Commercial Apprentices, the higher pay scale of ₹ 1600-2660 was being paid to those who were in a higher grade. 6. Though the above is disputed by Mrs. Sharda Devi, appearing for some of the respondents, we entertain no doubt on this score, because from what has been stated in para 6 of the Affidavit filed by T.P.V.S. Sekar Rao, Deputy Chief Personnel Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ears Yard's experience in the grade of ₹ 455-700. It is this pay scale which had become on revision ₹ 1400-2300: the unrevised pay scale of Section Controller was ₹ 470-750, which on revision become ₹ 1400- 2600. So, what has been stated in para 2(ii) does not support the case of the respondents that the memorandum of 1987 really dealt with the revision of pay of all the Traffic/Commercial Apprentices. 8. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunals which allowed the benefit of pay scale of ₹ 1600-2660 to all the Traffic/Commercial Apprentices irrespective of the grade of the posts held by them, not only misunderstood the memorandum of 1987, but misconceived the provisions relating to the recruitment and promotion of these Apprentices as finding place in the Establishment Manual. Indeed, somehow or other they were oblivious of what has found place in the Manual in this regard. 9. This leaves for consideration the question of validity of the memorandum. The Ernakulam Bench, which held the memorandum invalid, did so for the reason that the Railway Board, which had issued the memorandum, could not have changed the provisions finding place in the establishment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the knowledge required to man the posts in question. We agree and state that if direct recruits passing examination of higher standard to man higher posts were required to be given higher pay scales, the same cannot be regarded in any way as discriminatory or even arbitrary. Such a policy decision is not unreasonable also. 11. The final submission in this regard was that the cut- off date "15.5.1987 is arbitrary. This also is not correct because the memorandum had come to be issued following many deliberations and discussions with different unions of which mention has been in detail in one of the documents on record. So, it cannot be said that the date (15.5.1987) is one 'picked out from a hat', in which case a cut-off date would be arbitrary, as stated by this Court recently in para 4 of Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (1994) 4 SCC 212. We are rather satisfied that the date has relevance and the memorandum has come to be issued following the aforesaid discussion. So, we uphold the validity of the memorandum. Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos.2533-35 of 1994 12. In these appeals, it was contended by Shri Das on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 that the cases of these respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ite his having been promoted as Commercial Inspector Grade-II by an order dated 21.9.1989, which was made effective from 11.10.1988, because of which he had become eligible for promotion to Grade-I on 11.10.1990, as the eligibility condition was completion of 2 years of experience in Grade-II. The Patna Bench held that the exclusion of this respondent from the list of eligible candidates for the selection meant for 1990 was wrong. 15. The aforesaid decision has been challenged in this appeal by the Union of India by contending that 2 years' period of experience has to be reckoned, not from 11.10.1988, but from 21.9.1989. There is no dispute that the eligibility condition is 2 years experience in Grade-II. Now, this respondent having really started working in Grade- II pursuant to the order of 21.9.1989, he could not have gained experience prior to the date he had joined pursuant to this order. The mere fact that his promotion in Grade-II was notionally made effective from 11.10.1988 cannot be taken to mean that he started gaining experience from that day, because to gain experience one has to work. Notional promotions are given to take care of some injustice, inter alia, because s....