REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7138 OF 2010
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. .….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ISRO DRIVERS ASSOCIATION ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the order and judgment
dated 22nd September, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad holding the association
formed by the drivers based on job description as a ‘distinct
category’ laid down under Rule 5 (c) of Central Civil Services
(Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter being
1
referred to as “Rules 1993”) overruling the view expressed by the
Single Bench of the High Court dated 9th October, 2001.
2. The seminal facts in brief which are relevant for the present
purpose are that the respondent approached the High Court by
filing a writ petition seeking a declaration in treating their
association comprising of drivers operating in appellant no. 4Shar
Centre a Unit of ISRO, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh eligible to
participate in the verification process by according recognition and
rejection of their application by order dated 29th June, 1999 on the
premise that association formed by a group of employees based on
job description will not qualify for recognition under Rules 1993 is
in contravention to Rule 5 (c) which is not sustainable in law.
3. Learned Single Judge of the High Court taking note of the
scheme of Rules 1993 and R5(c) & R10 in particular with later
Office Memorandum dated 22nd April, 1994 of the Government of
India, Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pension read with decision of
the Department of Space dated 30th May, 1996 arrived at the
conclusion that the object of the scheme is to protect the common
interest of the employees of the establishment and the respondent
2
represents only the interests of drivers but the association must
have a collective voice of all the groups for the purpose of
recognition and after the expression ‘distinct category’ as referred to
under R5(c) being explicitly clarified by the Department of Personnel
and Training(DOPT) and Department of Space, any association
formed on the basis of job description or trade will not qualify to
accord recognition and later communication dated 22nd April, 1994
is supplementing the scheme of Rules 1993 for its proper
implementation in fulfilment of the object with which the scheme
has been framed and there appears no apparent error in the
decision of the authority rejecting their claim seeking recognition in
forming the association representing interest of the drivers based on
job description not being covered under the scheme of Rules 1993
dismissed the writ petition by its judgment and order dated 9th
October, 2001 which came to be challenged by the respondent in
writ appeal.
4. While revisiting the indisputed facts on record, the Division
Bench was of the view that the term ‘distinct category’ defined
under Rule 5 (c) is not open to be clarified by the DOPT and with its
3
literal interpretation held the association of drivers as a ‘distinct
category’ and accordingly directed the appellants to examine
whether the respondent satisfy other preconditions of the scheme
and, thereafter, take a decision subjected to the verification process
for being accorded recognition under the Rules 1993. The
appellants being aggrieved by the order and judgment of the
Division Bench impugned dated 22nd September, 2008 came up in
appeal before us.
5. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General
submits that the expression ‘distinct category’ as referred to under
Rule 5 (c ) of the Rules 1993 has not been defined and that was the
reason the rule making authority visited the scheme and by its
clarificatory memo dated 22nd April, 1994, had entrusted this
responsibility to concerned Ministry/Department to take a decision
keeping in view the functional, administrative and organizational
set up. In furtherance thereof, the Department of Space held its
meeting in April 1994 with all the service associations and except
the respondent, other associations agreed that all the employees
covered by the Joint Consultative Machinery scheme of the
4
Department should be treated as single category and any
association/Union exclusively formed by certain group of employees
based on job description in the organization such as drivers,
stenographers, tradesmen, etc. would not qualify for recognition
under the Rules 1993. Taking note of the overall view of the
functional, administrative and organizational set up of the
Department, a letter was issued to the centres/units on 30th May,
1996 to call for application of service association who wished to be
recognized under the scheme of Rules and it was clarified by the
Department that the term ‘distinct category’ as defined under Rule
5(c) will constitute all the employees in the particular region and
not a cluster of employees based on job or trade description like the
members of the respondent, all of whom were drivers, did not
constitute a ‘distinct category’ of government servants and were
rightly held not entitled for recognition.
6. Learned counsel further submits that while the rules are
framed under proviso to Article 309 read with clause 5 of Article
148 of the Constitution which indeed cannot be supplanted but the
administrative circulars could, nonetheless, be issued to
5
supplement the Rules and the unoccupied gaps of the Rules could
be filled, the expression ‘distinct category’ not being defined in the
Rules has been clarified by the Department of Personnel by its
clarificatory memo dated 22nd April, 1994 to promote harmonious
relations and securing cooperation between the Government and its
employees in matters of common concern and with the object of
promoting common service interest of its employees being the
primary object with which the scheme of Rules 1993 were framed.
7. Learned counsel further submits that once a clarification was
made of the expression ‘distinct category’ as referred to under Rule
5 (c ) by the rule making authority taking recourse to Rule 10 of
Rules 1993, the manner in which the expression ‘distinct category’
has been examined by the Division Bench of the High Court by
taking its literary meaning borrowed from the Dictionary is not
legally sustainable and deserves to be interfered by this Court.
8. Per contra, Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, learned counsel for the
respondent, on the other hand, while supporting the finding
recorded in the impugned judgment submits that as long as the
respondent fulfil the preconditions for recognition as envisaged
6
under the scheme of Rules 1993, it was not open for the appellants
to take aid or assistance and place reliance on the Office
Memorandum dated 22nd April, 1994 or 30th May, 1996 to deny
their claim which has been conferred on them under the statutory
rules framed under proviso to Article 309 read with clause 5 of
Article 148 of the Constitution of India.
9. Learned counsel further submits that they had formed their
association with the object of common service interest of the
drivers employed in Unit ISRO and remain restricted to a ‘distinct
category’ of Government servants, i.e., drivers all of whom had a
common interest and were eligible to be members of their
association and representing 120 out of 150 drivers of ISRO Unit
and more than 35% of the membership required and nature of
duties discharged by the drivers in ISRO being distinct from the
duties discharged by employees working in other categories of
posts, were rightly held to be eligible for recognition under Rules
1993.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the test to determine a
‘distinct category of government servants’ was homogeneity and
7
commonality of interest which is being fulfilled by the association of
drivers which had a commonality of interest, and was a
homogenous group and entitled for recognition as an association
exclusively of drivers and this what has been examined by the
Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment
extensively taking note of the scheme and in the absence of any
express prohibition under the scheme in having a number of
associations, it would justify claim of the first respondent of their
right to be recognized as a service association under the scheme of
Rules 1993 and needs no interference of this Court.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance perused the material available on record.
12. The question that emerges is whether “the association formed
on the basis of job description such as drivers etc. which has been
classified in group ‘C’ constitute a ‘distinct category of Government
servants’ under Rule 5 (c) of Rules 1993”.
13. With the object of promoting harmonious relations and
securing cooperation between the Government and its employees in
the matters of common concern and to increase efficiency of public
8
service, the Government of India established in 1966 the Machinery
for Joint Consultation and Arbitration. The Joint Consultative
Machinery Scheme was introduced at the national level and at two
lower levels, namely, departmental and regional/office level. The
Joint Councils operate with the official members and staff
members. The staff members are represented by recognized service
association of Government servants belonging to Group C & Group
D and Group B (nongazetted staff). Recognition of service
associations for the purpose of representation in the Joint Councils
of JCM is to be carried out in accordance with the Central Civil
Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1959 which
were superseded by the Rules 1993 by a notification dated 5th
November, 1993.
14. The Department of Space under the Government of India
(Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 formulated its own scheme of
JCM in 1977 with the object of promoting harmonious relations and
securing cooperation between the Department and its employees.
As per the scheme of JCM, all Group C & D employees and Group B
(nongazetted staff) working in the Department of Space are eligible
9
for participation in the scheme. After the notification of the Rules
1993, the Department of Space decided to implement these rules in
respect of the JCM Scheme.
15. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article
309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution and in
supersession of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service
Associations) Rules, 1959, Rules 1993 have been framed. The rules
relevant for the purpose are extracted hereunder:
“In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to
article 309 and clause (5) of article 148 of the Constitution,
after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General
in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and
Accounts Department, and in supersession of the Central
Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules,
1959 except as respects things done or omitted to be done
before such supersession, the President hereby makes the
following rules, namely:
1. ……..
2. ………
3. Application : These rules shall apply to Service
Associations of all Government servants including
civilian Government servants in the Defence
Services but shall not apply to industrial
employees of the Ministry of Railways and workers
employed in Defence Installations of Ministry of
Defence for whom separate Rules of Recognition
exist.
4. ........
10
5. Conditions for recognition of Service
Associations:
A Service Association which fulfills the following
conditions may be recognised by the Government,
namely:
(a) An application for recognition of Service
Association has been made to the
Government containing Memorandum of
Association, Constitution, Byelaws of the
Association, Names of OfficeBearers, total
membership and any other information as
may be required by the Government;
b) the Service Association has been formed
primarily with the object of promoting the
common service interest of its members;
(c) membership of the Service Association has
been restricted to a distinct category of
Government servants having common
interest, all such Government servants' being
eligible for membership of the Service
Association;
d) (i) The Association represents minimum
35 per cent of total number of a category
of employees provided that where there is
only one Association which commands
more than 35 per cent membership,
another Association with second highest
membership, although less than 35 per
cent may be recognised if it commands at
least 15 per cent membership;
(ii) The membership of the
Government servant shall be
automatically discontinued on his
ceasing to belong to such category;
11
(e) Government employees who are in service
shall be members or office bearers of the
service Association;
(f)(h)…..
69 …..
10. Interpretation:
If any question arises as to the
interpretation of any of the provisions of these
rules or if there is any dispute relating to
fulfilment of conditions for recognition it shall be
referred to the Government, whose decision
thereon shall be final.
(J.C. Mathur)
Joint Secretary to the Govt of India”
16. These rules apply to service associations of all Government
servants referred to under Rule 3 to be formed primarily with an
object of promoting the common service interest of its members and
it may be noticed that the expression ‘distinct category’ referred to
under clause (c) of Rule 5 has not been defined under the scheme of
Rules 1993.
17. R5(d)(i) defines the membership of service association who can
be granted recognition has been restricted to a ‘distinct category of
Government servants’ having common service interest and
represents 35% of total number of category of employees with a
12
proviso that where there is only one association which commands
more than 35% membership, another association may be
recognized if it commands at least 15% membership and this clearly
indicates that the rule making authority intended to avoid plurality
of service associations with an object to promote the common
service interest of all the group of employees/Government servants.
18. Since certain doubts were raised by the persons for
implementation of the scheme of Rules 1993, Ministry of Personnel
P.G. & Pension(Department of Personnel & Training), Government
of India vide Office Memorandum dated 22nd April, 1994 (Annexure
P2) made a clarification and invited attention to all the
Ministries/Departments and so far as expression ‘distinct category’
as referred to under Rule 5(c) is concerned, the doubt was whether
the term ‘distinct category’ means group wise categorization i.e.
group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ or cadrewise categorization and what will
be the effect of 35% of minimum membership of employees as
referred to under 5(d) and the clarification was made by the DOPT
for implementation of the Rules 1993 in granting recognition to the
service association.
13
19. Relevant part of the Office Memorandum dated 22nd April,
1994 is as follows:
“No. 2/2/94JCA
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pension
(Department of Personnel & Training)
New Delhi the 22nd April 1994
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Clarification regarding Central Civil Service (Recognition
of Service Associations) Rule 1993
The undersigned is directed to invite attention of all
Ministries/Departments to the Central Civil Services (Recognition of
Service Associations) Rules, 1992, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules),
which were notified in November, 1993 and to this Department's O.M. of
even number dated 31st January 1994 and to say that a large number of
references' are being received in this Department seeking clarification
concerning the abovementioned Recognition Rules. With a view to avoid
further references and to expedite matters, the common points of doubt
have been compiled and clarified below for information of all Ministries/
Departments.
POINTS OF DOUBT CLARIFICATION
1. Whether the Rules are applicable to
casual labourers, extraDepartmental agents, Contingent
paid staff, industrial employees
working in Telecom factories.
No. The Rules are applicable
only to those Central
Government employees to
whom the CCS (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 apply.
2. Whether a Federation or
Confederation of Associations can
be recognised under the Rules.
These Rules do not relate to a
Federation/Confederation of
Associations and as such, they
cannot be recognised under the
14
present Rules.
3. Whether the term “distinct
category” used in Rule 5(c)
means group wise categorization
i.e. group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ or ‘D’ or
cadrewise categorization.
BY a distinct category is
meant an Association whose
members have a
commonality of interest and
function as homogenous
group. The responsibility for
defining a distinct category”
has been left to the
concerned
Ministry/Department.
4. Whether the first two
associations are to be recognized
even in neither of them fulfills
the conditions of having the
minimum membership of 35%.
No filment of the condition
prescribed in Rule 5 (d) (i)
_____ before. In other words,
one association, that is the
first association, must have
35% membership between
the second association with
minimum of 15%
membership can be
recognized.
5. Whether Association are to be
recognized centrally or
zone/circle/region wise.
The Associations are to be
recognized centrally on all
ministry/Department basis
such associations may have
their branches in the
subordinate formulations.
6. Whether the minimum
membership prescribed in Rule
5(d)(i) is for the entire
Department or
zone/circle/regionwise etc.
The condition of minimum
membership as laid down in
Rule 5(d)(i) is for the entire
Department. In other words,
an Associations must have
the minimum percentage of
members amongst all
employees in that distinct
category in that Department.
7. Whether an Association having
fulfilled the conditions of Rules 5(d)
No
15
(i) in the entire Department must
also have the minimum
membership as prescribed in Rule
5(d)(i) in each of its branches.
8. Whether vacant posts will be
taken into account for the
purpose of calculating minimum
membership.
Percentage of membership is
to be determined on the
number of employees in each
distinct category and not on
the number of posts.
912 …………
(BIR DATT)
Director (JCA)”
(Emphasis supplied)
20. The Department of Space, taking assistance from the
clarification made by the DOPT vide OM dated 22nd April, 1994 held
its meeting with all the service associations except the respondent
agreed that all the employees covered by the JCM scheme of the
Department should be treated as single category and any
association or Union exclusively formed by certain group of
employees based on job description in the organization such as
drivers, stenographers, tradesmen, etc. would not qualify for
recognition under the Rules 1993 in the Department of Space.
21. In furtherance thereof, Department of Space issued Office
Memorandum dated 30th May, 1996 to implement the scheme of
16
Rules 1993 for recognition of service association under the JCM
Scheme.
“3. Condition for recognition of Service Associations for
Recognition
3. 1 A Service Association, which following conditions, will be
considered for recognition under DOS JCM Scheme:
(a) An application for recognition of Service Association has
been made to the Government containing Memorandum
of Association, Constitution, Byelaws of the Association,
Names of OfficeBearers, total membership and any other
information as may be required by the Government;
(b) The Service Association has been formed primarily with
the object of promoting the common service interest of its
members;
(c)(i) Membership of the Service Association has been
restricted to a distinct/category of Government servants
having common interest, all such Government servants
being eligible for membership of the Service Association;
(ii) So far as Department of space is concerned, all groups of
employees covered under the existing JCM scheme shall be
treated as a single category in each region.
(d) Only Government employees who are in service shall be
members or office bearers of the Service Association;
….”
3.2 An Association to be recognised should have a minimum
representation of 351 of the total number of eligible
employees in the region, provided that where there is only
one Association which commands more than 35%
membership, another Association with second highest
membership, although less than 35% may be recognised, if
it commands at least 15% membership. Percentage of
membership has to be determined on the number of eligible
employees in the region and not on the number of posts.”
17
22. The application submitted by the first respondent seeking
recognition of association based on job description of drivers came
to be rejected by the 4th appellant by communication dated 21st
June, 1999 on the premise that the association has been
exclusively formed by a group of employees comprising of drivers on
job description would not qualify for recognition under Rules 1993.
23. As per the scheme of Rules 1993, it is applicable to such
Government servants to whom the Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 are applicable. The Department of Space framed its
own disciplinary rules regarding alleged misconduct being
committed by the employees for holding disciplinary inquiries under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, namely, the Department
of Space (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1976 was further
amended in the year 2013. Annexed thereto, schedule has been
appended to Rule 30 prescribing the classification of Civil Posts
under the Department of Space broadly in four Groups ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’
and ‘D’. The employees who are working in SDSC SHAR i.e.
technical attendants, nursing attendants, technicians, office
18
attendants, gardeners, safaiwalas, security guards, canteen
attendants, radiographers, pharmacists, lab technicians, nurses,
agricultural supervisors, drivers, stenographers etc. are falling in
different groups based on their pay scales and job description etc.
24. That apart, two different set of recruitment rules have been
placed for perusal. One set of recruitment rules have been framed
by Department of Space for drivers in exercise of powers conferred
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution called as
Department of Space (Staff Car Drivers/Light Vehicle Drivers)
Recruitment Rules, 2001 classified drivers in Group ‘C’ post. For
the other category of posts of Assistant, Senior Project Assistant,
Personnel Assistant and Private Secretary, their recruitment is
regulated by the Rules called the Department of Space (Group ‘B’
Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2009 and with partial modification, the
method of recruitment and designation to the post of Assistant
(Group ‘B’ nongazetted) called the Department of Space (Assistant)
Recruitment Rules, 2016. At some stages, for other purposes,
categorization of posts have been made indicating ministerial, nonministerial, industrial and nonindustrial, tenure posts but broadly
19
under the scheme of recruitment rules, the service conditions of
employees have been broadly classified in four groups A,B,C & D of
which a reference has been made supra.
25. In compliance of the scheme of Rules, applications were
invited from various associations in SDSC, SHAR for according
recognition. It has come on record that four associations/Unions
who represent combination of group of employees and who fulfil the
requirement to participate in the verification process for recognition
under the rules submitted their applications:
1. SHAR Employees Association (SEA)
2. SHAR Employees Trade Union (SETU)
3. SHAR Employees Union (SEU)
4. SHAR Antariksh Staff Association (SASA)
26. Out of the above four Associations/Unions, three participated
in the process of verification held on 10th January, 2002. The
results of verification of membership in SHAR Centre is as follows:
1. Total number of employees eligible to participate in the
verification process in SHAR Centre 1207
2. Number of employees who actually participate in the
verification process 1105
20
27. The breakup of the numbers of letters of Authorization (i.e.
number of employees who subscribed for each association) received
on 10th January, 2002 as a result of the verification of membership
is given below :
1. SHAR Employees Association (SEA) 651
2. SHAR Employees Trade Union (SETU) 327
3. SHAR Antariksh Staff Association (SASA) 124
28. As per the scheme of Rules 1993, service associations – SEA
and SETU got the required membership and accordingly recognition
was accorded.
29. The primary object of forming service association is to promote
the common service interest of its members and the membership of
the service association remain restricted to such Government
servants having common interest and all group of employees
covered under the existing JCM scheme were categorized as a
‘distinct category’ for forming their association. At the same time, if
association/Union is being exclusively permitted to be formed by
21
the group of employees based on job description in the organization
such as drivers, stenographers, etc. apart from various category of
employees who are working in SDSC SHAR i.e. technical
attendants, nursing attendants, technicians, office attendants,
radiographers, etc. for the purpose of recognition under the scheme
of Rules 1993 treating them to be a ‘distinct category’ as considered
by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment, there is a greater
probability that the employees of each of the above mentioned
trades/jobs would form into association in each of the
centres/units qualifying themselves into ‘distinct category’ and seek
representation in JCM that would not only defeat the purpose of
JCM but would lead to groupism obstructing the working
atmosphere and neither joint consultation nor consensus would
prevail and that will jeopardize the service interest of the
government servants.
30. It has come on record that presently the strength of the staff
working in various groups is over 16,000. In the given situation, if
any group of employees based on their job description is permitted
to form an association under the guise of ‘distinct category’ as
22
prayed, it will indeed have an adverse consequential effect which
would never be the intention of the rule making authority while
framing the scheme of Rules 1993. Our view is being strengthened
noticing Rule 5 (d) which lays down that subsequent association
with less than 35% of total number of categories can be recognized
if it commands at least 15% of the membership. The respondent
confining itself to drivers as members cannot command 15% of the
total number of employees covered by the scheme in SDSC SHAR as
the sanctioned strength of the drivers (around 160) is less than 15%
of the members under the scheme, as a distinct category
considering the Group of employees (A,B,C & D) respectively.
31. The Latin maxim ‘noscitur a socilis’ states this contextual
principle, whereby a word or phrase is not to be construed as if it
stood alone but in the light of its surroundings – Bennion on
Statutory Interpretation, Fifth Edition AG Prince Ernest Augustus
of Hanover [1957] AC 436, Viscount Simonds has opined that “a
word or phrase in an enactment must always be construed in the
light of the surrounding text. “…words and particular general
23
words, cannot be read in isolation, their colour and their content
are derived from their context.”
32. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the scheme of Rules
1993 clearly manifests that the primary object of the scheme is to
promote the common service interest of its members and service
association which intends to accord recognition must represent
minimum 35% of the total category of employees with a rider that
where there is only one association which commands more than
35% membership and another association with second highest
membership must be recognized if it commands at least 15%
membership. The intention appears to be to avoid plurality of
associations which indeed may not be in the overall interest of the
Government servants in forming service association on their job
description. In this context, the expression ‘distinct category of
government servants’ referred under Rule 5 (c) with its due
emphasis in furtherance of the clarification which has been made
by the rule making authority is, in fact, supplementing the scheme
of rules for its effective and proper implementation which is
permissible under the law unless held to the contrary and that was
24
never the case of the respondent at any stage in grouping the
classification of posts in group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ as a ‘distinct
category’, is in contravention to Rule 5 (c ) of Rules 1993 and any
further subclassification of posts based on job description is not
permissible under the recruitment and conduct rules if permitted
under the guise of expression ‘distinct category’ to form service
association, it would defeat the purpose and object with which the
scheme of Rules 1993 have been framed according recognition to
service association which has been primarily formed with an object
of promoting the common service interests of its members at large
and the literal interpretation in isolation of the term ‘distinct
category’ made by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
impugned judgment granting permission to each group of
employees based on job description/trade to claim recognition and
form their service association would not only defeat the primary
object of the scheme of Rules 1993 but the purpose as well with
which the Joint Consultative Machinery has been formed to watch
albeit the common service interest of its members/Government
servants.
25
33. On the overall analysis, the appeal deserves to succeed. The
impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
dated 22nd September, 2008 is unsustainable and accordingly set
aside.
34. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
35. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)
…………………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
……………………………………J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 10, 2020
26
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7138 OF 2010
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. .….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ISRO DRIVERS ASSOCIATION ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the order and judgment
dated 22nd September, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad holding the association
formed by the drivers based on job description as a ‘distinct
category’ laid down under Rule 5 (c) of Central Civil Services
(Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter being
1
referred to as “Rules 1993”) overruling the view expressed by the
Single Bench of the High Court dated 9th October, 2001.
2. The seminal facts in brief which are relevant for the present
purpose are that the respondent approached the High Court by
filing a writ petition seeking a declaration in treating their
association comprising of drivers operating in appellant no. 4Shar
Centre a Unit of ISRO, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh eligible to
participate in the verification process by according recognition and
rejection of their application by order dated 29th June, 1999 on the
premise that association formed by a group of employees based on
job description will not qualify for recognition under Rules 1993 is
in contravention to Rule 5 (c) which is not sustainable in law.
3. Learned Single Judge of the High Court taking note of the
scheme of Rules 1993 and R5(c) & R10 in particular with later
Office Memorandum dated 22nd April, 1994 of the Government of
India, Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pension read with decision of
the Department of Space dated 30th May, 1996 arrived at the
conclusion that the object of the scheme is to protect the common
interest of the employees of the establishment and the respondent
2
represents only the interests of drivers but the association must
have a collective voice of all the groups for the purpose of
recognition and after the expression ‘distinct category’ as referred to
under R5(c) being explicitly clarified by the Department of Personnel
and Training(DOPT) and Department of Space, any association
formed on the basis of job description or trade will not qualify to
accord recognition and later communication dated 22nd April, 1994
is supplementing the scheme of Rules 1993 for its proper
implementation in fulfilment of the object with which the scheme
has been framed and there appears no apparent error in the
decision of the authority rejecting their claim seeking recognition in
forming the association representing interest of the drivers based on
job description not being covered under the scheme of Rules 1993
dismissed the writ petition by its judgment and order dated 9th
October, 2001 which came to be challenged by the respondent in
writ appeal.
4. While revisiting the indisputed facts on record, the Division
Bench was of the view that the term ‘distinct category’ defined
under Rule 5 (c) is not open to be clarified by the DOPT and with its
3
literal interpretation held the association of drivers as a ‘distinct
category’ and accordingly directed the appellants to examine
whether the respondent satisfy other preconditions of the scheme
and, thereafter, take a decision subjected to the verification process
for being accorded recognition under the Rules 1993. The
appellants being aggrieved by the order and judgment of the
Division Bench impugned dated 22nd September, 2008 came up in
appeal before us.
5. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General
submits that the expression ‘distinct category’ as referred to under
Rule 5 (c ) of the Rules 1993 has not been defined and that was the
reason the rule making authority visited the scheme and by its
clarificatory memo dated 22nd April, 1994, had entrusted this
responsibility to concerned Ministry/Department to take a decision
keeping in view the functional, administrative and organizational
set up. In furtherance thereof, the Department of Space held its
meeting in April 1994 with all the service associations and except
the respondent, other associations agreed that all the employees
covered by the Joint Consultative Machinery scheme of the
4
Department should be treated as single category and any
association/Union exclusively formed by certain group of employees
based on job description in the organization such as drivers,
stenographers, tradesmen, etc. would not qualify for recognition
under the Rules 1993. Taking note of the overall view of the
functional, administrative and organizational set up of the
Department, a letter was issued to the centres/units on 30th May,
1996 to call for application of service association who wished to be
recognized under the scheme of Rules and it was clarified by the
Department that the term ‘distinct category’ as defined under Rule
5(c) will constitute all the employees in the particular region and
not a cluster of employees based on job or trade description like the
members of the respondent, all of whom were drivers, did not
constitute a ‘distinct category’ of government servants and were
rightly held not entitled for recognition.
6. Learned counsel further submits that while the rules are
framed under proviso to Article 309 read with clause 5 of Article
148 of the Constitution which indeed cannot be supplanted but the
administrative circulars could, nonetheless, be issued to
5
supplement the Rules and the unoccupied gaps of the Rules could
be filled, the expression ‘distinct category’ not being defined in the
Rules has been clarified by the Department of Personnel by its
clarificatory memo dated 22nd April, 1994 to promote harmonious
relations and securing cooperation between the Government and its
employees in matters of common concern and with the object of
promoting common service interest of its employees being the
primary object with which the scheme of Rules 1993 were framed.
7. Learned counsel further submits that once a clarification was
made of the expression ‘distinct category’ as referred to under Rule
5 (c ) by the rule making authority taking recourse to Rule 10 of
Rules 1993, the manner in which the expression ‘distinct category’
has been examined by the Division Bench of the High Court by
taking its literary meaning borrowed from the Dictionary is not
legally sustainable and deserves to be interfered by this Court.
8. Per contra, Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, learned counsel for the
respondent, on the other hand, while supporting the finding
recorded in the impugned judgment submits that as long as the
respondent fulfil the preconditions for recognition as envisaged
6
under the scheme of Rules 1993, it was not open for the appellants
to take aid or assistance and place reliance on the Office
Memorandum dated 22nd April, 1994 or 30th May, 1996 to deny
their claim which has been conferred on them under the statutory
rules framed under proviso to Article 309 read with clause 5 of
Article 148 of the Constitution of India.
9. Learned counsel further submits that they had formed their
association with the object of common service interest of the
drivers employed in Unit ISRO and remain restricted to a ‘distinct
category’ of Government servants, i.e., drivers all of whom had a
common interest and were eligible to be members of their
association and representing 120 out of 150 drivers of ISRO Unit
and more than 35% of the membership required and nature of
duties discharged by the drivers in ISRO being distinct from the
duties discharged by employees working in other categories of
posts, were rightly held to be eligible for recognition under Rules
1993.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the test to determine a
‘distinct category of government servants’ was homogeneity and
7
commonality of interest which is being fulfilled by the association of
drivers which had a commonality of interest, and was a
homogenous group and entitled for recognition as an association
exclusively of drivers and this what has been examined by the
Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment
extensively taking note of the scheme and in the absence of any
express prohibition under the scheme in having a number of
associations, it would justify claim of the first respondent of their
right to be recognized as a service association under the scheme of
Rules 1993 and needs no interference of this Court.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance perused the material available on record.
12. The question that emerges is whether “the association formed
on the basis of job description such as drivers etc. which has been
classified in group ‘C’ constitute a ‘distinct category of Government
servants’ under Rule 5 (c) of Rules 1993”.
13. With the object of promoting harmonious relations and
securing cooperation between the Government and its employees in
the matters of common concern and to increase efficiency of public
8
service, the Government of India established in 1966 the Machinery
for Joint Consultation and Arbitration. The Joint Consultative
Machinery Scheme was introduced at the national level and at two
lower levels, namely, departmental and regional/office level. The
Joint Councils operate with the official members and staff
members. The staff members are represented by recognized service
association of Government servants belonging to Group C & Group
D and Group B (nongazetted staff). Recognition of service
associations for the purpose of representation in the Joint Councils
of JCM is to be carried out in accordance with the Central Civil
Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1959 which
were superseded by the Rules 1993 by a notification dated 5th
November, 1993.
14. The Department of Space under the Government of India
(Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 formulated its own scheme of
JCM in 1977 with the object of promoting harmonious relations and
securing cooperation between the Department and its employees.
As per the scheme of JCM, all Group C & D employees and Group B
(nongazetted staff) working in the Department of Space are eligible
9
for participation in the scheme. After the notification of the Rules
1993, the Department of Space decided to implement these rules in
respect of the JCM Scheme.
15. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article
309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution and in
supersession of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service
Associations) Rules, 1959, Rules 1993 have been framed. The rules
relevant for the purpose are extracted hereunder:
“In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to
article 309 and clause (5) of article 148 of the Constitution,
after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General
in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and
Accounts Department, and in supersession of the Central
Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules,
1959 except as respects things done or omitted to be done
before such supersession, the President hereby makes the
following rules, namely:
1. ……..
2. ………
3. Application : These rules shall apply to Service
Associations of all Government servants including
civilian Government servants in the Defence
Services but shall not apply to industrial
employees of the Ministry of Railways and workers
employed in Defence Installations of Ministry of
Defence for whom separate Rules of Recognition
exist.
4. ........
10
5. Conditions for recognition of Service
Associations:
A Service Association which fulfills the following
conditions may be recognised by the Government,
namely:
(a) An application for recognition of Service
Association has been made to the
Government containing Memorandum of
Association, Constitution, Byelaws of the
Association, Names of OfficeBearers, total
membership and any other information as
may be required by the Government;
b) the Service Association has been formed
primarily with the object of promoting the
common service interest of its members;
(c) membership of the Service Association has
been restricted to a distinct category of
Government servants having common
interest, all such Government servants' being
eligible for membership of the Service
Association;
d) (i) The Association represents minimum
35 per cent of total number of a category
of employees provided that where there is
only one Association which commands
more than 35 per cent membership,
another Association with second highest
membership, although less than 35 per
cent may be recognised if it commands at
least 15 per cent membership;
(ii) The membership of the
Government servant shall be
automatically discontinued on his
ceasing to belong to such category;
11
(e) Government employees who are in service
shall be members or office bearers of the
service Association;
(f)(h)…..
69 …..
10. Interpretation:
If any question arises as to the
interpretation of any of the provisions of these
rules or if there is any dispute relating to
fulfilment of conditions for recognition it shall be
referred to the Government, whose decision
thereon shall be final.
(J.C. Mathur)
Joint Secretary to the Govt of India”
16. These rules apply to service associations of all Government
servants referred to under Rule 3 to be formed primarily with an
object of promoting the common service interest of its members and
it may be noticed that the expression ‘distinct category’ referred to
under clause (c) of Rule 5 has not been defined under the scheme of
Rules 1993.
17. R5(d)(i) defines the membership of service association who can
be granted recognition has been restricted to a ‘distinct category of
Government servants’ having common service interest and
represents 35% of total number of category of employees with a
12
proviso that where there is only one association which commands
more than 35% membership, another association may be
recognized if it commands at least 15% membership and this clearly
indicates that the rule making authority intended to avoid plurality
of service associations with an object to promote the common
service interest of all the group of employees/Government servants.
18. Since certain doubts were raised by the persons for
implementation of the scheme of Rules 1993, Ministry of Personnel
P.G. & Pension(Department of Personnel & Training), Government
of India vide Office Memorandum dated 22nd April, 1994 (Annexure
P2) made a clarification and invited attention to all the
Ministries/Departments and so far as expression ‘distinct category’
as referred to under Rule 5(c) is concerned, the doubt was whether
the term ‘distinct category’ means group wise categorization i.e.
group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ or cadrewise categorization and what will
be the effect of 35% of minimum membership of employees as
referred to under 5(d) and the clarification was made by the DOPT
for implementation of the Rules 1993 in granting recognition to the
service association.
13
19. Relevant part of the Office Memorandum dated 22nd April,
1994 is as follows:
“No. 2/2/94JCA
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pension
(Department of Personnel & Training)
New Delhi the 22nd April 1994
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Clarification regarding Central Civil Service (Recognition
of Service Associations) Rule 1993
The undersigned is directed to invite attention of all
Ministries/Departments to the Central Civil Services (Recognition of
Service Associations) Rules, 1992, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules),
which were notified in November, 1993 and to this Department's O.M. of
even number dated 31st January 1994 and to say that a large number of
references' are being received in this Department seeking clarification
concerning the abovementioned Recognition Rules. With a view to avoid
further references and to expedite matters, the common points of doubt
have been compiled and clarified below for information of all Ministries/
Departments.
POINTS OF DOUBT CLARIFICATION
1. Whether the Rules are applicable to
casual labourers, extraDepartmental agents, Contingent
paid staff, industrial employees
working in Telecom factories.
No. The Rules are applicable
only to those Central
Government employees to
whom the CCS (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 apply.
2. Whether a Federation or
Confederation of Associations can
be recognised under the Rules.
These Rules do not relate to a
Federation/Confederation of
Associations and as such, they
cannot be recognised under the
14
present Rules.
3. Whether the term “distinct
category” used in Rule 5(c)
means group wise categorization
i.e. group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ or ‘D’ or
cadrewise categorization.
BY a distinct category is
meant an Association whose
members have a
commonality of interest and
function as homogenous
group. The responsibility for
defining a distinct category”
has been left to the
concerned
Ministry/Department.
4. Whether the first two
associations are to be recognized
even in neither of them fulfills
the conditions of having the
minimum membership of 35%.
No filment of the condition
prescribed in Rule 5 (d) (i)
_____ before. In other words,
one association, that is the
first association, must have
35% membership between
the second association with
minimum of 15%
membership can be
recognized.
5. Whether Association are to be
recognized centrally or
zone/circle/region wise.
The Associations are to be
recognized centrally on all
ministry/Department basis
such associations may have
their branches in the
subordinate formulations.
6. Whether the minimum
membership prescribed in Rule
5(d)(i) is for the entire
Department or
zone/circle/regionwise etc.
The condition of minimum
membership as laid down in
Rule 5(d)(i) is for the entire
Department. In other words,
an Associations must have
the minimum percentage of
members amongst all
employees in that distinct
category in that Department.
7. Whether an Association having
fulfilled the conditions of Rules 5(d)
No
15
(i) in the entire Department must
also have the minimum
membership as prescribed in Rule
5(d)(i) in each of its branches.
8. Whether vacant posts will be
taken into account for the
purpose of calculating minimum
membership.
Percentage of membership is
to be determined on the
number of employees in each
distinct category and not on
the number of posts.
912 …………
(BIR DATT)
Director (JCA)”
(Emphasis supplied)
20. The Department of Space, taking assistance from the
clarification made by the DOPT vide OM dated 22nd April, 1994 held
its meeting with all the service associations except the respondent
agreed that all the employees covered by the JCM scheme of the
Department should be treated as single category and any
association or Union exclusively formed by certain group of
employees based on job description in the organization such as
drivers, stenographers, tradesmen, etc. would not qualify for
recognition under the Rules 1993 in the Department of Space.
21. In furtherance thereof, Department of Space issued Office
Memorandum dated 30th May, 1996 to implement the scheme of
16
Rules 1993 for recognition of service association under the JCM
Scheme.
“3. Condition for recognition of Service Associations for
Recognition
3. 1 A Service Association, which following conditions, will be
considered for recognition under DOS JCM Scheme:
(a) An application for recognition of Service Association has
been made to the Government containing Memorandum
of Association, Constitution, Byelaws of the Association,
Names of OfficeBearers, total membership and any other
information as may be required by the Government;
(b) The Service Association has been formed primarily with
the object of promoting the common service interest of its
members;
(c)(i) Membership of the Service Association has been
restricted to a distinct/category of Government servants
having common interest, all such Government servants
being eligible for membership of the Service Association;
(ii) So far as Department of space is concerned, all groups of
employees covered under the existing JCM scheme shall be
treated as a single category in each region.
(d) Only Government employees who are in service shall be
members or office bearers of the Service Association;
….”
3.2 An Association to be recognised should have a minimum
representation of 351 of the total number of eligible
employees in the region, provided that where there is only
one Association which commands more than 35%
membership, another Association with second highest
membership, although less than 35% may be recognised, if
it commands at least 15% membership. Percentage of
membership has to be determined on the number of eligible
employees in the region and not on the number of posts.”
17
22. The application submitted by the first respondent seeking
recognition of association based on job description of drivers came
to be rejected by the 4th appellant by communication dated 21st
June, 1999 on the premise that the association has been
exclusively formed by a group of employees comprising of drivers on
job description would not qualify for recognition under Rules 1993.
23. As per the scheme of Rules 1993, it is applicable to such
Government servants to whom the Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 are applicable. The Department of Space framed its
own disciplinary rules regarding alleged misconduct being
committed by the employees for holding disciplinary inquiries under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, namely, the Department
of Space (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1976 was further
amended in the year 2013. Annexed thereto, schedule has been
appended to Rule 30 prescribing the classification of Civil Posts
under the Department of Space broadly in four Groups ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’
and ‘D’. The employees who are working in SDSC SHAR i.e.
technical attendants, nursing attendants, technicians, office
18
attendants, gardeners, safaiwalas, security guards, canteen
attendants, radiographers, pharmacists, lab technicians, nurses,
agricultural supervisors, drivers, stenographers etc. are falling in
different groups based on their pay scales and job description etc.
24. That apart, two different set of recruitment rules have been
placed for perusal. One set of recruitment rules have been framed
by Department of Space for drivers in exercise of powers conferred
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution called as
Department of Space (Staff Car Drivers/Light Vehicle Drivers)
Recruitment Rules, 2001 classified drivers in Group ‘C’ post. For
the other category of posts of Assistant, Senior Project Assistant,
Personnel Assistant and Private Secretary, their recruitment is
regulated by the Rules called the Department of Space (Group ‘B’
Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2009 and with partial modification, the
method of recruitment and designation to the post of Assistant
(Group ‘B’ nongazetted) called the Department of Space (Assistant)
Recruitment Rules, 2016. At some stages, for other purposes,
categorization of posts have been made indicating ministerial, nonministerial, industrial and nonindustrial, tenure posts but broadly
19
under the scheme of recruitment rules, the service conditions of
employees have been broadly classified in four groups A,B,C & D of
which a reference has been made supra.
25. In compliance of the scheme of Rules, applications were
invited from various associations in SDSC, SHAR for according
recognition. It has come on record that four associations/Unions
who represent combination of group of employees and who fulfil the
requirement to participate in the verification process for recognition
under the rules submitted their applications:
1. SHAR Employees Association (SEA)
2. SHAR Employees Trade Union (SETU)
3. SHAR Employees Union (SEU)
4. SHAR Antariksh Staff Association (SASA)
26. Out of the above four Associations/Unions, three participated
in the process of verification held on 10th January, 2002. The
results of verification of membership in SHAR Centre is as follows:
1. Total number of employees eligible to participate in the
verification process in SHAR Centre 1207
2. Number of employees who actually participate in the
verification process 1105
20
27. The breakup of the numbers of letters of Authorization (i.e.
number of employees who subscribed for each association) received
on 10th January, 2002 as a result of the verification of membership
is given below :
1. SHAR Employees Association (SEA) 651
2. SHAR Employees Trade Union (SETU) 327
3. SHAR Antariksh Staff Association (SASA) 124
28. As per the scheme of Rules 1993, service associations – SEA
and SETU got the required membership and accordingly recognition
was accorded.
29. The primary object of forming service association is to promote
the common service interest of its members and the membership of
the service association remain restricted to such Government
servants having common interest and all group of employees
covered under the existing JCM scheme were categorized as a
‘distinct category’ for forming their association. At the same time, if
association/Union is being exclusively permitted to be formed by
21
the group of employees based on job description in the organization
such as drivers, stenographers, etc. apart from various category of
employees who are working in SDSC SHAR i.e. technical
attendants, nursing attendants, technicians, office attendants,
radiographers, etc. for the purpose of recognition under the scheme
of Rules 1993 treating them to be a ‘distinct category’ as considered
by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment, there is a greater
probability that the employees of each of the above mentioned
trades/jobs would form into association in each of the
centres/units qualifying themselves into ‘distinct category’ and seek
representation in JCM that would not only defeat the purpose of
JCM but would lead to groupism obstructing the working
atmosphere and neither joint consultation nor consensus would
prevail and that will jeopardize the service interest of the
government servants.
30. It has come on record that presently the strength of the staff
working in various groups is over 16,000. In the given situation, if
any group of employees based on their job description is permitted
to form an association under the guise of ‘distinct category’ as
22
prayed, it will indeed have an adverse consequential effect which
would never be the intention of the rule making authority while
framing the scheme of Rules 1993. Our view is being strengthened
noticing Rule 5 (d) which lays down that subsequent association
with less than 35% of total number of categories can be recognized
if it commands at least 15% of the membership. The respondent
confining itself to drivers as members cannot command 15% of the
total number of employees covered by the scheme in SDSC SHAR as
the sanctioned strength of the drivers (around 160) is less than 15%
of the members under the scheme, as a distinct category
considering the Group of employees (A,B,C & D) respectively.
31. The Latin maxim ‘noscitur a socilis’ states this contextual
principle, whereby a word or phrase is not to be construed as if it
stood alone but in the light of its surroundings – Bennion on
Statutory Interpretation, Fifth Edition AG Prince Ernest Augustus
of Hanover [1957] AC 436, Viscount Simonds has opined that “a
word or phrase in an enactment must always be construed in the
light of the surrounding text. “…words and particular general
23
words, cannot be read in isolation, their colour and their content
are derived from their context.”
32. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the scheme of Rules
1993 clearly manifests that the primary object of the scheme is to
promote the common service interest of its members and service
association which intends to accord recognition must represent
minimum 35% of the total category of employees with a rider that
where there is only one association which commands more than
35% membership and another association with second highest
membership must be recognized if it commands at least 15%
membership. The intention appears to be to avoid plurality of
associations which indeed may not be in the overall interest of the
Government servants in forming service association on their job
description. In this context, the expression ‘distinct category of
government servants’ referred under Rule 5 (c) with its due
emphasis in furtherance of the clarification which has been made
by the rule making authority is, in fact, supplementing the scheme
of rules for its effective and proper implementation which is
permissible under the law unless held to the contrary and that was
24
never the case of the respondent at any stage in grouping the
classification of posts in group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ as a ‘distinct
category’, is in contravention to Rule 5 (c ) of Rules 1993 and any
further subclassification of posts based on job description is not
permissible under the recruitment and conduct rules if permitted
under the guise of expression ‘distinct category’ to form service
association, it would defeat the purpose and object with which the
scheme of Rules 1993 have been framed according recognition to
service association which has been primarily formed with an object
of promoting the common service interests of its members at large
and the literal interpretation in isolation of the term ‘distinct
category’ made by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
impugned judgment granting permission to each group of
employees based on job description/trade to claim recognition and
form their service association would not only defeat the primary
object of the scheme of Rules 1993 but the purpose as well with
which the Joint Consultative Machinery has been formed to watch
albeit the common service interest of its members/Government
servants.
25
33. On the overall analysis, the appeal deserves to succeed. The
impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
dated 22nd September, 2008 is unsustainable and accordingly set
aside.
34. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
35. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)
…………………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
……………………………………J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 10, 2020
26
