AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Is Rule 2.3 of the Telephone Allotment Rules, 1980 which provides for the grant of preferential treatment to the officers of the Posts and Telegraphs Department vis-a-vis the other officers of the Central or State Governments violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. A few facts may be noticed.
The petitioner was working in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. On October 5, 1971, he was promoted as an Audit Officer. He retired after rendering more than 34 year''s of service, on June 30, 1986 from the office of Accountant General (Audit), Punjab, Chandigarh. Immediately prior to his retirement, he was working in the pay scale of Rs. 840-1200. He was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1,200/- plus Rs. 40/-which had been granted to him as a stagnation increment. the pay scale of the post of Audit Officer was revised by the Government of India with effect from January 1, 1986 and raised to Rs. 2375-3500. According to the certificate issued by the competent authority, the petitioner''s basic pay was fixed at Rs. 3,300/- with effect from January 1, 1986.
Having retired, the petitioner applied for the grant of a telephone connection in the year 1988. He was registered in the Non-OYT (General Category). On May 23, 1991, the petitioner made a request to the authorities to transfer his application from the General Category to the S.S. Category. This is a special category and ensures expeditious grant of connection. Having failed to get any favourable reasonse, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He prays for the issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to transfer his -application from the Non-OYT (General Category) to Non-OYT S.C. Category. He further prays that the provisions in Rule 2.3 on account of which the Department has not granted the requisite relief to him, be declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
After hearing the petitioner who had appeared in person, a Division Bench of this Court had directed the issue of notice of motion to the respondents. Vide order dated February 13, 1992, the Bench had allowed the respondents to file the return (subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as costs). The writ petition was ultimately admitted on February 20, 1992. On March 16, 1992, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Application No. 2349 of 1992 with the prayer that the defence of the respondents be struck off as the costs awarded by the Division Bench had not been paid, This application was ordered to be heard with the main case. The petitioner did not address any arguments in this behalf at the state of the hearing of the case. However, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, it does not appear to be necessary or proper to strike off the defence of the respondents. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the factual position has not been disputed. However, it has been averred that the request of the petitioner for transfer to S.S. Category was not granted as he was not fulfilling the basic condition of basic pay of Rs. 3,700/- prior to one year of retirement. "It has also been averred the Government Officer of the other Departments cannot be considered at par with P and T officers." The respondents maintain that just as the Departments of Railways and Electricity etc. have been providing coo-cessions to its retired employees, even the Department of Telecom has accorded certain privileges to its retired officers. Such an action, according to the respondents, does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
The petitioner has argued his case in person. He submits that the action is violative of Article 14, of the Constitution. On the other hand, Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Action is in complete conformity with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and calls for no interference.
Before considering the respective submissions, it is apt to notice the provision which is contained in clause (e) of Rule 2.3. It reads as under:-
Rule 2.3. No. OYT SS. Category:-
Non-OYT. S.S. applications from the following will be registered under this category:-
(e) Senior Officers of Central or State Governments who have left government services either on normal retirement after superannuation or on voluntary retirement or on resignation and had, on the date of their retirement or resignation, completed 20 years of service or more and who had continuously drawn a basic pay (Special Pay and officiating pay will also be treated as part of basic pay) of Rs. 1600/- (Rs.l100/- for P and T Officers) or more for a period of one year prior to leaving Government Service. Officers of overseas communications service would be treated at par with P and T officers for allotment of telephones under this category. Also this facility should be extended to such staff of the Ministry of Communications and P and T Audit who had been working in these offices for at least 7 years continuously prior to the date of retirement. This facility will also be available to the spouse of Government servant after his/her death.
A perusal of the above provision shows that Senior Officers of Central or State Governments who resign or retire on completion of 20 years of service or more, are eligible to be registered under Non-OYT S.S. Category. However, while an officer retiring from the P and T Department becomes eligible if he has drawn a basic pay of Rs. 1,100/- or more for a period of one year prior to leaving Government service, the rule requires that an officer from any other Department should have drawn a basic pay of Rs. 1,600/- or more. Even the officers who have worked in P and T (Audit) for at least 7 years continuously prior to the date of retirement are entitled to be treated at par with the other officers of the Post and Telegraphs Department. Is the prescription of different levels of basic pay discriminatory and violative of the Constitution of India?
It is well known that a telephone connection is not available on demand. Unless a person has resources or is otherwise resourceful, he has to wait for a long time. The rule accords a preferential treatment to the class of persons who have served the Central or State Government for the best part of their lives. This is perfectly legitimate. However, within this class of officers, the rule creates a further classification. The officers who have retired from the Posts and Telegraphs Department are treated as a separate class. They become eligible for inclusion in the Special Category if they had drawn a basic pay of Rs. 1100/- P.M. for a year prior to the date of leaving service, whereas in case of all other officers, a basic pay of Rs. 1600/- P.M. has been prescribed. There is no basis for such a provision. No reason whatsoever has been disclosed for this preferential treatment. Merely because certain other Departments are giving concessions to their employees, cannot without anything more provide a valid justification. In this behalf, it may be noticed that the officers of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are even posted in the P and T Department. While those who get this posting and are able to Serve there for 7 years immediately prior to their retirement or leaving the service, become eligible for the grant of preferential treatment, the other officers who may even be senior to them but are posted in other Departments, are trot afforded this benefit. This is clearly unreasonable. It is unfair. If the plea raised on behalf of the respondents is accepted, we may tomorrow be confronted with a situation where the Doctors would claim preferential treatment in hospitals, teachers in Universities and so oh. Such tendencies need to be curbed.
It is no doubt true that Article 14 permits reasonable classification. However, such classification must have a nexus with the object to be achieved. In the present case, the object of the rule appears to be to accord preferential treatment to the officers who have served the Government for the prescribed period. In this behalf, all officers have a right to be treated alike. If the officers of the P and T Department become eligible on their drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1,100/- for one year before leaving the service, which has since been raised to Rs. 3,300/-w.e.f. 1.1.86 On account of revision of pay scales, there is no rationale for laving down a different standard for the other officers. This part of the rule, thus, suffers from the vice of invidious discrimination and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is held to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. As a result, all employees who have retired or left service and were drawing basic pay of Rs. 1,100/- and now Rs. 3,000/- for a period of one year, have a right to be included in the Special Category.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is held that all officers drawing the pay as prescribed for those from the P and T Department, are entitled to be included in the Special Category. The petitioner''s application has, thus, to be transferred to the S.S. Category and a telephone connection should be given to them in his turn. The petitioner will also be entitled to his costs which are assessed at Rs. 2000/-