PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA [RAILWAY BOARD] & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: J.V. SUBHAIAH & ORS. ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT15/12/1995 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) KIRPAL B.N. (J) CITATION: 1996 SCC (2) 258 JT 1995 (9) 488 1996 SCALE (1)193 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Ramaswamy, J.
Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
The respondents were admittedly appointed in Railway
Employees’ Consumer Co-operative Stores at Rajahmundry,
Visakhapatnam, Vijianagaram and Dharmavaram in South-Central
Railway. They filed different O.As. before the Central
Administrative Tribunal [CAT], Hyderabad Bench seeking
declaration that they are “regular Railway employees in
Class III posts” and entitled to be paid regular salary for
continuous service from the date of the respective
appointments in the Societies and also consequential
promotion, increments and payment of arrears of salary. The
CAT, Hyderabad Bench following the decision of the Madras
Bench delivered on June 29, 1990 in O.A.No.305/88 allowed
the O.As. and gave the directions for grant of the reliefs
referred to earlier but payment of salary was directed to be
made from the date on which respective applications were
filed. By the time the present Special Leave Petitions came
to be filed, a two-Judge Bench of this Court by order dated
September 7, 1994 made in C.A. No.2932/91 confirmed the
order of the CAT, Madras Bench but the review petition was
pending. When these appeals had come up for hearing on
October 16, 1995 it was pointed out to another Bench by the
Additional Solicitor General that despite the dismissal the
matter required examination and for that reason notice was
already issued in another case, viz., C.A. @ SLP 24287/95.
All the matters were accordingly tagged together. After the
dismissal of the review petition a two-Judge Bench by order
dated November 13, 1995 referred the matter to this Bench.
Thus these appeals by special leave.
The admitted facts are that the respondents were
appointed by the respective Railway Co-operative Stores
registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies
Act, 1964 as amended from time to time. The Co-operative
Stores were organised by the Railway Administration as
social welfare measure to inculcate thrift and cooperative
spirit in the management of the societies, distribution of
essential commodities and lending of credit facilities etc.
to the members of the societies. Under the bye-laws,
respective societies consist of serving members of the
Railway Administration at the respective places. Normally
these societies are formed at railway junctions. They are
organised under the instructions issued by the Railway
Administration in the Railway Establishment Manual [non-
statutory orders]. Working of the societies are supervised
by the welfare officers appointed by the Railway
Administration. It is in dispute as to whether salaries to
welfare officers are paid by the societies concerned or by
the Railway Administration but that is not material for
disposal of these appeals. It is also not in dispute that
one third of the members of the societies are nominated by
the Railway Administration.
Shri Tulsi, learned Additional Solicitor General
contended, on the facts, that Co-operative Stores registered
under the Co-operative Societies Act, a State Act and the
articles of association or the bye-laws of the societies are
sanctioned by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies [for
short, “the Registrar”] of the concerned State appointed by
the State Government under the respective State Acts. The
constitution of the societies is regulated and registered
under the State Act. Appropriate law, rules and bye-laws
provide that the General Body of the society periodically
elects the members of the committee which in turn elects the
President or general body itself elects the President, for a
specified term. The President and the committee, as the case
may be, is empowered to appoint the officers, employees and
servants of the Stores according to its bye-laws. The
Registrar under the respective Acts, has supervision and
control over the working of the societies and its employees.
In case of dispute between the society and its members or
the society and its officers or employees, the same is
resolved by an arbitrator under the Act and appeal
thereunder is provided to a Tribunal constituted or an
appellate forum specified. The jurisdiction of a civil court
stands excluded in respect of the said disputes. Salaries to
the staff are paid by the society. Railway Establishment
Manual prescribes procedure for organisation of the welfare
activities, one of which is establishment of consumer credit
co-operative societies or house building societies. The
share capital, though deducted from the salary of the
member-employees, is only by way of an amenity to enable
them to organise, as a co-operative movement, for self-help
and thrift. The Administration has no control over
selection, appointment and payment of salaries to the staff
of the society. No qualifications are prescribed in that
behalf. It is due to administrative exigencies of the
concerned Stores or the Societies that appointment or
dismissal can be made by the President/committee as per the
procedure prescribed under the respective Acts or the Rules
or bye-laws made thereunder. Thereby the Railway
Administration has no managerial or administrative control
over the staff of the Stores/Societies. The conditions of
service of the officers of the Railway Administration are
not applicable to them. If the Society is liquidated by the
Registrar for its mismanagement the employees of the
Societies seek the remedy only against the Societies. The
societies have not been impleaded as respondents. The ratio
in M.M.Khan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1990) Supp.
SCC 191] cannot be applied to the employees of the
Societies/Stores. The rent-free accommodation and provision
of electricity to the Stores and medical facilities to the
employees are extended as a part of the welfare measure
without creating an obligation on the part of the Railway
Administration to treat them as Railway employees. In
M.M.Khan’s case recognised cooperative canteens were
organised as a part of the statutory duty under Section 46
of the Factories Act where employees are 100 or above in
number but below 250. The ratio laid down therein is
inapplicable to the facts of these appeals. Shri K. Madhava
Reddy, learned senior counsel and Mrs. Chandan Ramamurthy,
learned counsel for the respondents contended that the ratio
of M.M.Khan’s case applies on all fours to the facts of
these appeals. Co-operative Stores/Societies have been
organised at the instance of the Railway Administration.
Their work is controlled and supervised by the Welfare
Officer appointed by the Railway Administration and subsidy
is being paid by the Railway Administration. The society is
merely an intervening agency or veil between the Railway
Administration and the employees of the Cooperative
Stores/Societies. The Railway Administration admittedly
gives facilities like railway passes, quarters on nominal
rent, free medical aid and other amenities given to the
regular officers and servants of the Railway Administration
from time to time. The Railway Board issues circulars from
time to time to control, organise and supervise the working
of the Stores. The Railway Establishment Manual itself is a
complete code in that behalf. Merely because the Railway
Administration kept its arms as an intervening agency
between the Stores and the employees, it cannot disown its
liability to treat the employees appointed by the
Stores/Societies [like canteen cases] as its employees. The
decision of the Madras Bench of the CAT since upheld by this
Court in an appeal and review petition also having been
dismissed, the employees appointed by the respective Stores
in Southern Railway and South-Central Railway form a class
discharging the same duties. Therefore, the respondents
cannot be denied their Constitutional right to have equal
treatment as had by the regular Railway employees. Smt.
Chandan Ramamurthy placed strong reliance on yet another
decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Parimal
Chandra Raha & Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India &
Ors. [(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 611].
In view of the respective contentions a question giving
rise to far-reaching consequences emerges for decision in
these appeals. The question is whether the officers,
employees and servants appointed by a Co-operative
Society/Stores registered under the Co-operative Societies
Act of a State or Societies Registration Act (for short,
`the Society’) and organised as a welfare measure to
inculcate co-operative movement, self-help and thrift among
the officers and servants of Railway Administration, can be
declared to be regularly appointed Railway employees?
Whether they are Railway employees defined under the Railway
Establishment Manual and entitled to all the consequential
benefits? Before adverting to the instructions in the
Railway Establishment Manual, it would be profitable to
consider the legal setting of the appointments of the
employees and servants of the Society. In this case since
admittedly the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act [7 of 1964]
(for short `the Act’) is applicable, its provisions and of
the predecessor Acts repealed thereunder and of the Rules
made thereunder as amended from time to time and bye laws of
the society are required to be examined. The Act was enacted
with a view to encourage co-operative movement, inculcate
thrift and self-help and to organise the societies on
democratic lines. The right to form a society is a statutory
right and is not a fundamental right, a Society registered
under Section 7, on compliance with and conforming to the
requirements laid down therein and the rules made
thereunder, is a body corporate under Section 9. The
Registrar is empowered under Section 15 to divide the area
of operation of the Society or amalgamate Societies for
their day to day better working. The amendment to the bye-
laws shall be approved by the Registrar and registered under
Section 16. The rights and liabilities of the members are
regulated in Chapter III subject to Section 21. Section 19
regulates the eligibility of a member and other
qualifications. Section 21 prescribes disqualification for
membership of the Society. Section 21-A prescribes
disqualification for membership of the committee of the
society. Section 21-AA envisages cessation of membership of
a committee and the reinstatement under Section 21-B.
Election and the right to vote is regulated by Section 25.
Management of the society is regulated by Section 30.
The ultimate authority of the Society vests in its
general body vide Section 30 (1) (a). It would be subject to
the other provisions of the Act and the Rules and bye-laws
made thereunder. Section 31 prescribes the procedure for
constitution of a committee and their duties and
responsibilities etc. Section 32 prescribes procedure for
holding general body meeting of the Society and the
committee and sub-section (4) thereof empowers the Registrar
to appoint a Special Officer with remuneration for the
management of the committee. Section 37, with an non-
obstante clause and subject to the execution of an
agreement, empowers the Society to deduct the share capital
or any amount from monthly salary or wages payable to a
member of the Society. The duration of elected body is five
years. Chapter VII consists of Sections 50 to 60 for audit,
enquiry, inspection and surcharge for the mismanagement and
recovery of the amounts found mismanaged or defalcated from
the members of the committee or the officers or servants of
the Society. Chapter VIII deals with settlement of disputes.
It consists of Section 61 to 63. Sub-section (1) of Section
61 with a non-obstante clause provides that any dispute
touching upon the constitution, management or the business
of the Society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary
action taken by the Society or its committee against a paid
employee of the Society, shall be resolved by arbitration on
a reference under Section 62 and recovery of the monies due
to it. Chapter IX deals with winding up of and cancellation
of the registered Societies. Liquidator gets appointed to
wind up the Society. Chapter X deals with execution of the
decisions, decrees or orders. Chapter XI provides for
constitution of a Co-operative Tribunal, appointment of the
members of the Tribunal, appeal thereto, revision to the
Registrar and review of the orders had been provided in
Sections 76,77 and 78. Chapter XII deals with offences and
penalties.
Section 79 (1) (a) provides that “it shall be an
offence under the Act, if a committee, an officer, employee
or any member of the society willfully makes a false return
or furnishes false information, on a lawful order or
direction issued” under the Act. Clause (aa) provides that
“if the committee, an officer, employee or any member of the
society furnishes false information to gain admission or to
continue as member of a society etc., it/he shall be liable
for prosecution as envisaged under the Act. Special Courts
are empowered to take congnizance and try an offence against
the officers etc. constituted under Section 83-A.
Section 116-A with a non-obstante clause gives power in
Chapter IVX to the Registrar to constitute a common cadre
for the categories of employees for certain societies
enumerated thereunder. Section 116-AA equally gives power to
him to abolish the centralised services for certain
categories of employees. Section 116-C empowers the
societies with prior approval of the Registrar to fix
staffing pattern, qualifications, pay-scales and other
allowances. In case of a society receiving financial aid
from the Government, appointment or removal of the Chief
Executive of the society by whatever name called of any
society should be made only with the prior approval of the
Registrar as per sub-section (2) of Section 116-C. Section
121 bars the jurisdiction of courts and provides that no
order, decision or action taken or direction issued under
the Act by an arbitrator, liquidator, Registrar or Tribunal
etc, shall be liable to be called in question in any court.
The rights and liabilities are subject to the bye-laws,
Rules and the Act. The Society owes its existence and
continuance by its efficient and proper management by the
Committee assisted in its day-to-day management by its
staff.
Rules 28 and 29 of the Co-operative Societies Rules of
1964 [for short, “the Rules”] provide as under:
“28. Officers and servants of societies:
– (1) No society shall appoint any
person as its paid officer or servant in
any category of service, unless he
possesses the qualification and
furnishes the security as specified by
the Registrar, from time to time, for
such category of service in the society
or for the class of societies to which
it belongs.
(2) No society shall retain in service
any paid officer or servant, if he does
not, acquire qualifications, or furnish
the security, as is referred to sub rule
(1) within such time as the Registrar
may direct.
(3) The Registrar may, for special
reasons, relax in respect of any paid
officer or servant, the provisions of
this rule in regard to the
qualifications he should possess or the
security he should furnish.
(4) No society shall appoint as its paid
officer or servant in any category of
service any person who is related to any
director or member of the committee of a
financing bank to which the society is
affiliated except with the prior
approval of the Registrar.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained
in the bye-laws/special bye-laws,
service regulations or common cadre
regulations of the co-operative
societies, every paid servant and
officer of a society, other than those
in the last grade service, shall retire
from service on the afternoon of the
last date of the month in which he
attains the age of 58 years.
29. Appointment of Secretary:- Every
financing bank, every credit society
with limited liability and a working
capital of not less than Rupees one lakh
shall appoint a paid secretary. The paid
secretary shall be disqualified for
being appointed as, and for being a
member of the committee of the financing
bank, the society or the mortgaged bank,
as the case may be:”
A conspectus of these provisions would clearly indicate
that registration of the society, election to the committee,
the term thereof, rights and liabilities of the members and
office bearers are regulated under the Act. Power to appoint
officers, employees and servants of the society is given to
the President or the committee, as the case may. They are
regulated by the bye-laws, Rules and the Act. Their service
conditions are regulated by those provisions with prior
approval of the Registrar. A sample bye-laws of the society
relating to the Consumer Stores at Rajahmundry has been
placed before us. It shows that under bye-law 19, the
management of the affairs of the society, subject to the
resolutions passed from time to time by the general body or
the committee from time to time, “shall vest in the managing
committee”. Under bye-law 20, the general body elects,
amongst themselves, a President, a Secretary, an Assistant
Secretary. Under bye-laws 23, subject to the resolutions
passed by the managing committee from time to time, several
officers of the society shall have the powers to manage the
society as enumerated thereunder. Sub-bye-law (2) thereof
provides that Society shall appoint a paid Manager who,
among other things, shall be responsible to carry on day-to-
day work of the society on sound lines. Under sub-law (3),
the managing committee is empowered to prescribe from time
to time the strength of the establishment of the society and
the scales of pay and allowances admissible to each member
appointed by the President. Under sub-law (3) (c), the
President shall have the power to fine, suspend or dismiss
the members of the establishment. Except in the case of
fine, an appeal shall lie to the Committee against every
order awarding a punishment by the President. Under bye-law
27 (2), no officer or servant shall remain in any category
of service in the Society, if he does not furnish security
as prescribed by the Registrar. The other bye-laws are not
relevant for the purpose of these cases.
It would thereby be clear that the power to prescribe
strength of the establishment appointment of the staff of
the Society, its officers, employees and servants, and their
scale of pay are regulated by bye-laws, Rules and the Act.
Disciplinary control lies with the President and the
Committee. The disciplinary action against its employees is
excluded from the arbitration proceedings, by operation of
Section 60. For offences etc. are prosecuted under the Act,
the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded. Appointment
of the officers, employees and servants of the Society is
regulated by the provisions of the Act, Rules and the bye-
laws as self-contained scheme and code. The Society enjoys
autonomy as a body corporate subject to the provisions of
the Act, Rules and bye-laws. It enjoys exclusive power to
appoint and keep disciplinary control over the staff in its
establishment. The tenure is subject to bye-laws, Rules and
Act and law so long as the Society is not liquidated as per
law. In Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & Ors. etc. v.
Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
[(1969) 2 SCC 43] this Court had held that Industrial
Disputes Act would apply to the employees appointed under
the Act by the Co-operative Central Bank. It would, thereby,
be clear that appointments of the staff of the
establishment, control and disciplinary actions are
regulated under the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the
remedies provided under law.
The question, therefore, emerges whether the officers,
employees and servants appointed by Co-operative Society
organised under the Railway Establishment Manual could be
treated as Railway servants. Paragraph 10B of the Indian
Railway Establishment Code defines “Railway Servant” to mean
“a person who is a member of a service or who holds a post
under the administrative control of the Railway Board and
includes a post in the Railway Board”. In other words, a
person must be appointed to a service or a holder of a post
under the administrative control of the Railway Board
including a post in the Railway Board itself. Admittedly,
respondents are not members of the service nor do they hold
post under the administrative control of the Railway Board.
They seek party only on the basis of the rule laid down by
this Court in M.M. Khan’s case [supra].
Before dealing with the effect of the ratio of M.M.
Khan’s case, it would be appropriate to deal with yet
another decision rendered on the same day by the same Bench
which was argued in the same batch but a separate Judgment
was rendered, viz., All India Railway Institute Employees’
Association v. Union of India through the Chairman [(1990) 2
SCC 542] to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J., was a member.
Therein the question was whether the employees appointed in
the institutes or clubs maintained by the Railway employees
as welfare measure could be treated as Railway employees on
par with Railway canteen employees [statutory or non-
statutory recognised canteens]. This Court recognising that
the establishment of the institutes or clubs, though
recognised by the Railway, was only a welfare measure, had
held that formation of the institutes or clubs was not
mandatory. They are established as a part of the welfare
measure for the Railway staff and the kind of activities
they conduct, depends, among other things, on the funds
available to them. The activities have to conform to the
objects since by their very nature the funds are not only
limited but keep on fluctuating. The institutes or clubs and
the benefits that would flow on them will depend upon the
budgetary provisions for the institutes and clubs and keep
flowing from time to time. If the employees working in the
institutes or clubs are recognised as Railway employees it
will have snow-balling effect on other welfare activities
carried out by the Railway and similar activities carried
“on by all other organisations”. In the light of those
factual matrices, it was held that there was no relationship
of employer and employee between the Railway Administration
and the employees engaged in the institutes and clubs.
Neither law nor facts spell out such relationship.
In M.M.Khan’s case [supra], establishment of a canteen
was one of the mandatory requirements as a part of efficient
Railway Administration. Where the employees are 250 and
above, Section 46 of the Factories Act mandates the
industrial establishment to establish and maintain canteens.
If the employees are 100 and above, though it was not
mandatory but maintenance of a canteen under the Railway
Establishment Manual is a part of the Railway
Administration. In that factual and legal setting, this
Court was to consider the effect of non-statutory recognised
canteens registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and
the staff appointed in those societies. It was held that the
management of the Societies was controlled by the Railway
Administration by appointing a Chairman or Secretary as a
member of the Society. The nominees of the Railway
Administration are statutorily obligated to bring to the
notice of the Railway Administration all the management and
affairs of the committee which is likely to affect the
interests of the Railway Administration in its capacity as
the owner of the premises and furniture equipments etc. If
the decision of the committee is likely to be of a
considerable magnitude it is required to be brought to the
notice of the Railway Administration. The General Manager of
the Railway has supervisory control over the management of
the committee as per the provisions contained in the Railway
Manual. For the purpose of giving subsidy for wages, the
rates of pay and allowances to the staff canteen employees
are regulated by the Manual. Revision of the scales of pay
and dearness allowance to the managing committee was also
regulated therein. The Railway Administration had given
directions from time to time to ensure compliance of those
requirements. This Court also intervened and pending
appeals, gave directions to pay to the canteen employees
equal pay on par with regular employees of the Railway
Administration and compliance was enforced by orders of this
Court. Their service conditions are regulated by the
instructions. The employees in the canteens are also
entitled to free medical treatment as out-door patients in
Railway hospitals etc. In the backdrop of those facts and
the Rules, this Court had held that the employees appointed,
even in non-statutory recognised canteens registered under
Co-operative Societies Act or the recognised canteens, would
be entitled to claim the status of Railway servants.
Shri Madhava Reddy, in all frankness admitted that
there is a dichotomy of dual control exercised by the
Registrar under the Act and the control by the Railway
Administration. But he contends that since the staff
appointed by the Co-operative Societies running canteens are
treated as Railway servants the same ratio should be
extended to the employees appointed by the Co-operative
Stores/Society since this is also a welfare amenity totally
controlled by the Railway Administration and 10 per cent
subsidy is also regularly given.
It is not necessary to embark upon a detailed
examination into the instructions given in various paragraph
Nos.2901 to 2909 in chapter 29 of Railway Manual (placed
before us) dealt with by the CAT, Madras Bench in its
judgment. Suffice it to state that admittedly instructions
have been issued to regulate the systematic organisation and
management of the Stores/Societies. The Government, as a
welfare measure, gives 10 per cent subsidy to enable the
Society to manage its affairs supervised by the Welfare
Officer of the Railway Department. Employees become members
of the Societies by contributing towards share capital.
Initial amount is paid by the Railway Administration and is
later deducted from their salary. It also gives free
accommodation for housing the Stores, electricity, free
medical aid in its hospitals to those employed by the
Stores. In the Manual it is specifically stated that they
are entitled to traveling passes when they go to attend the
committee meetings. Even otherwise the facilities extended
are optional and are only a part of on-going welfare
measure.
It is seen that service conditions of the employees,
officers and servants of the Stores/Societies are not
regulated by the Railway Administration. They are governed
by the bye-laws of the Societies subject to control and
sanction by the Registrar under the State Act or the
relevant provisions. There is no obligation on the part of
the Railway Administration to provide security for those
employees. The disciplinary control by the Society concerned
is subject to other laws and is exclusively domestic in
character. The Railway Establishment Code is not applicable
to them. Their appointment is subject to bond prescribed by
the Registrar. The arrears of funds or misappropriated
amounts etc. are recoverable under the provisions of the
State Act and the Rules made thereunder. The services of the
staff are liable to termination in terms of the State Act,
Rules and bye-laws.
In other words, there is a dual control over the staff
by the Society and the Registrar. In that behalf, the
Railway Administration has no role to play. If the subsidy
is considered to be a controlling factor and the
Societies/Stores as an intervening agency or veil between
the Railway Administration and the employees, the same
principle would equally be extendible to the staff,
teachers, professors appointed in private educational
institutions receiving aid from the appropriate
State/Central Government to claim the status of Government
employees. Equally, other employees appointed in other Co-
operative Stores/Societies organised by appropriate
Government would also be entitled to the same status as
Government servants. Appointment to a post or an office
under the State is regulated under the statutory rules
either by direct recruitment or appointment by promotion
from lower ladder to higher service or appointment by
transfer in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the
qualifications specified. Any appointment otherwise would be
vertical transplantation into services de hors the rules.
Appointment through those institutions becomes gate-way for
back door entry into Government service and would be
contrary to the prescribed qualifications and other
conditions and recruitment by Public Service Commission or
appropriate agencies. As contended, if the employees of the
societies like co-operative canteens are declared to be
railway servants, there would arise dual control over them
by the Registrar and Railway Administration but the same was
not brought to the attention of the court when M.M. Khan’s
case was decided.
It is true that the order of the two-Judge Bench of
this Court had upheld the order of the CAT, Madras Bench
which had become final. With due and great respect to our
learned brethren constituting the Bench, these features
noted by us do not appear to have been put up for their
consideration and so they did not have occasion to consider
the impact as envisaged hereinbefore. The Bench merely
stated thus:
“… The Tribunal has examined in detail
Chapter XXIX of the Indian Railway
Establishment Manual and has preferred
to paras 2901 to 2909. Based on the
provisions of the Railway Manual and
taking into consideration the actual
working of the Stores, the Tribunal has
come to the conclusion that the
employees working in the Co-operative
Stores are in fact and in law, the
employees of the Railway Establishment.
We have been taken through the judgment
of the Tribunal and other relevant
material on record. We so no ground to
interfere with the reasoning and the
conclusion reached by the Tribunal..”.
In view of the above discussion and in view of the
legal setting referred to hereinbefore, we are of the
considered view that the Bench had not laid down any law
except approving the reasoning and conclusion reached by the
Madras Bench of the CAT. The Madras Bench had merely
referred to the provisions in the Manual and proceeded on
the premise that they gave rise to a legal base to treat the
employees of the Stores as the Railway employees. The
reasoning is wholly illegal and unsustainable for the
reasons stated above.
The principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of
the Constitution, as contended for the respondents, does not
apply since we have already held that the order of the CAT,
Madras Bench is clearly unsustainable in law and illegal
which can never form basis to hold that the other employees
are invidiously discriminated offending Article 14. The
employees covered by the order of the Madras Bench may be
dealt with by the Railway Administration appropriately but
that could not form foundation to plead discrimination
violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the
officers, employees and servants appointed by the Railway
Co-operative Stores/Societies cannot be treated on par with
Railway servants under paragraph 10B of the Railway
Establishment Code nor they can be given parity of status,
promotions, scales of pay, increments etc. as ordered by the
CAT, Hyderabad Bench.
The appeals are accordingly allowed and the OAs stand
dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.