{"id":42245,"date":"1959-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959"},"modified":"2017-11-06T11:28:49","modified_gmt":"2017-11-06T05:58:49","slug":"all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959","title":{"rendered":"All India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central … on 20 November, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
All India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central … on 20 November, 1959<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 384, \t\t 1960 SCR (2) 311<\/div>\n
Author: K D Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nALL  INDIA  STATION  MASTERS'&\tASSISTANT  STATION  MASTER'S\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAYSAND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n20\/11\/1959\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1960 AIR  384\t\t  1960 SCR  (2) 311\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1963 SC 913\t (37,38)\n F\t    1967 SC 839\t (12)\n R\t    1968 SC  81\t (6)\n R\t    1969 SC 212\t (8)\n D\t    1976 SC 490\t (30,57,58,108)\n R\t    1978 SC 327\t (6)\n R\t    1981 SC1829\t (29)\n R\t    1984 SC1683\t (11)\n D\t    1985 SC1495\t (133)\n\n\nACT:\nState  Employment-Equality  of\topportunity  in\t matters  of\npromotion-Concept and meaning of-Constitution of India, Art.\n16(1).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   Roadside\tStation\t Masters  of  the  Central   Railway\nchallenged the constitutionality of promotion for guards  to\nhigher\tgrade  station\tmasters'  posts.   The\t petitioners\ncontended  that\t the  channel of promotions  amounted  to  a\ndenial\tof  equal opportunity as  between  Roadside  Station\nMasters\t and  Guards  in the matter of\tpromotion  and\tthus\ncontravened   the   provisions\t of  Art.   16(1)   of\t the\nConstitution, as taking advantage of this channel of  promo-\ntions, guards become station masters at a very much  younger\nage than Roadside Station Masters and thus block the chances\nof  higher promotion to Roadside Station Masters  who  reach\nthe scale when they are much older.\nThe  appellant contended that Roadside Station\tMasters\t and\nGuards really formed one and the same class of employees.\nHeld,  that the Roadside Station Masters belong to a  wholly\ndistinct and separate class from Guards and so there can  be\nno  question  of  equality  of\topportunity  in\t matter\t  of\npromotion  as  between\tthe  Roadside  Station\tMasters\t and\nGuards.\nThe question of denial of equal opportunity requires serious\nconsideration only as between the members of the same class.\nThe  concept of equal opportunity in matters of\t employment,\ndoes  not  apply  to variations\t in  provisions\t as  between\nmembers\t of different classes of employees under the  State.\nEquality  of  opportunity in matters of\t employment  can  be\npredicated only\n312\nbetween persons who are either seeking the same\t employment,\nor   have  obtained  the  same\temployment.    Equality\t  of\nopportunity  in matters of promotion, must mean equality  as\nbetween\t members  of  the same class  of  employee  and\t not\nequality  between members of separate, independent  classes.\nThe fact that the qualifications  necessary for\t recruitment\nof one post and another are approximately or even wholly the\nsame can in no way affect the question\twhether\t they\tform\none and the same class, or form different classes.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 126 of 1958.
\nPetition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,\t for
\nenforcement of Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
N. C. Chatterjee and B. V. S. Mani, for the petitioners.
\nB. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
\n1959.  November 20.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nDAS  GUPTA J.-The petitioners who describe them-  selves  as
\nRoad-side  Station Masters challenge in this petition  under
\nArt.  32  of the Constitution the constitutionality  of\t the
\nchannel\t of  promotion for Guards to  higher  grade  Station
\nMasters’  posts\t as  notified in the issue  of\tthe  Central
\nRailway\t ‘Weekly  Gazette  No. 3 dated\tNovember  23,  1951.
\nUnder  this Notification Guards have two lines of  promotion
\nopen  to them. One is that by promotion, C grade Guards\t may
\nbecome\tB  grade  Guards on Rs. 100-185\t and  thereafter  by
\nfurther promotion A grade Guaids on Rs. 150-225. The  second
\nline  of  promotion open to them is that by  an\t examination
\ndescribed  curiously enough as Slip 45 examination  C  grade
\nGuards\tare  eligible  for promotion  to  posts\t of  Station
\nMasters\t on  RS.  150-225 scale and thereafter\tto  all\t the
\nfurther\t promotions  that are open to the  Station  Masters,
\nviz.,  higher ,cales of Rs. 200 to Rs. 300, Rs. 260  to\t Rs.
\n350,  Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 and finally Rs. 360 to Rs.  500;  B
\ngrade Guards and A grade Guards are also on passing Slip  45
\nexamination  eligible  for  promotion to  posts\t of  Station
\nMasters\t on Rs. 200-300 pay scale and thereafter to  further
\npromotions  to\tthe higher scales in  the  Station  Masters’
\nline.  The Road side Station Masters on pay scale of Rs.  80
\nto Rs. 170
\n313<\/span>
\n(the  scale  was  formerly Rs. 64-170)\tcan  also  reach  by
\npromotion  the\tgrade of Rs. 150-225 but  only\tafter  going
\nthrough\t an  intermediate stage of Rs.\t100-185.   Similarly
\nStation\t Masters  on Rs. 100-185 scale may  also  reach\t the
\nstage  of  Rs. 200-300 but only after  passing\tthrough\t the
\nintermediate stage of Rs. 150-225.  Obviously the provisions
\nenabling  Guards to become Station Masters on the pay  scale
\nof  Rs.\t 150-225 places the Station Masters  of\t Rs.  80-170
\nscale at a disadvantage as against Guards on that pay  scale
\nand  also puts the Road-side Station Masters on the  pay  of
\nRs. 100-185 pay scale at a disadvantage as against Guards on
\nthat scale of pay.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioners contend that the channel of promotion in  so
\nfar  as it enables Guards to be promoted as Station  Masters
\nin  addition to the other line of promotion open to them  as
\nGuards\tamounts to a denial of equal opportunity as  between
\nRoad-side  Station  Masters  and Guards\t in  the  matter  of
\npromotion and thus contravenes the provisions of Art.  16(1)
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
It was further alleged in the petition that taking advantage
\nof this channel of promotion, Guards become Station  Masters
\non  Rs.\t 150-225 at a very much younger age  than  Road-side
\nStation\t Masters  and  thus  block  the\t chances  of  higher
\npromotion  to  Road-side Station Masters who reach  the\t Rs.
\n150-225 scale when they are much older.\t As instances of how
\nthe  impugned  provisions in the channel  of  promotion\t are
\nharmful\t to the Road-side Station Masters,  the\t petitioners
\nstate: that while the petitioner No. 2 even after completing
\n32 years of service has remained in the grade of Rs. 100-185
\nas Station Master, Guards of equal status and standing\thave
\nreached\t gazetted  rank within the same period\tof  service;
\nthat  whereas the petitioner No, 3 has come by promotion  to
\nthe  grade  of\tRs.  150225 after putting  in  21  years  of
\nservice,  Guards of his standing have risen to the grade  of
\nRs.  360-500 by virtue of the impugned channel of  promotion
\nand  several of his juniors who entered the Railway  service
\nlong after him as Guards have superseded him and are working
\nin the grade of Rs. 360-500; that while the
\n314<\/span>
\npetitioner  No. 4 having entered into service  as  Telegraph
\nCandidate    and   having   passed   all    the\t   requisite
\nexaminations  prescribed  for the higher  grade\t of  Station
\nMaster within a period of 2 1\/2 years after putting in 6 1\/2
\nyears of service is still in the grade of Rs. 80-170, Guards
\nof his length of service and departmental qualification\t are
\nentitled  for promotion as an Assistant\t\t     Station
\nMaster\tin  the grade of Rs. 150-225 within about  the\tsame
\nlength of service.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondents-the  General  Manager,\t Central   Railways,
\nBombay, V.T., the Chairman Railway Board, New Delhi and\t the
\nUnion of India,-who contest the application contend that the
\nchannel of promotion providing these opportunities to Guards
\ndoes not in any way contravene the provisions of Art.  16(1)
\nof the Constitution.  They also deny the correctness of\t the
\nallegation  that as a result of these  opportunities  Guards
\nbecome Station Masters on Rs. 150-225 pay scale at a Younger
\nage than Road-side Station Masters.  On the material  before
\nus  it\tis  not possible to come to  a\tfirm  conclusion  as
\nregards\t the  relative\tage at\twhich  Guards  or  Road-side
\nStation\t\t  Masters ordinarily reach the pay scale  of
\nRs.  150-225.\tAssuming,  however, the position  to  be  as
\nstated\tin the petition, that may only evoke  some  sympathy
\nfor  the Road-side Station Masters, but does not in any\t way
\naffect\tthe decision of the question whether Art.  16(1)  of
\nthe   Constitution  is\tcontravened  by\t this\tchannel\t  of
\npromotion.\n<\/p>\n
Art. 16(1) of the Constitution is in these words:-
\nThere  shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens  in
\nmatters relating to employment or appointment to any  office
\nunder the State’.”\n<\/p>\n
The  impugned provisions of the channel of promotion are  in
\nrespect\t of promotion of persons already employed under\t the
\nState  and not in respect of the first employment under\t the
\nState.\t       If the “equality of opportunity ”  guaranteed
\nto all citizens by Art. 16(1) does not extend to matters  of
\npromotion  the petitioners’ contention that  the  provisions
\nare  void  must\t fail  at once.\t  If,  however,\t matters  of
\npromotion are
\n\t\t\t    315<\/span>
\nalso ” matters relating to employment” within the meaning of
\nArt. 16(1) of the Constitution, the next question we have to
\nconsider is whether the impugned provisions amount to denial
\nof  equality  of  opportunity within  the  meaning  of\tthat
\nArticle.\n<\/p>\n
We  propose  to consider the second question first,  on\t the
\nassumption that matters of promotion are Cc matters relating
\nto  employment “. So multifarious are the activities of\t the
\nState  that  employment\t of men for  the  purpose  of  these
\nactivities  has\t by  the  very nature of  things  to  be  in
\ndifferent   departments\t of  the  State\t and   inside\teach
\ndepartment, in many different classes.\tFor each such  class
\nthere  are separate rules fixing the number of personnel  of
\neach  class,  posts to which the men in that class  will  be
\nappointed,  questions of seniority, pay of different  posts,
\nthe  manner  in which promotion will be, effected  from\t the
\nlower  grades of pay to the higher grades, e.g., whether  on
\nthe result of periodical examination or ‘by seniority, or by
\nselection or on some other basis-and other cognate  matters.
\nEach  such  class  can\tbe reasonably  considered  to  be  a
\nseparate and in many matters independent entity with its own
\nrules of recruitment, pay and prospects and other conditions
\nof service which may vary considerably between one class and
\nanother.  A member joins a particular class on\trecruitment;
\nhe  leaves  the class on retirement or death  or  dismissal,
\ndischarge,  resignation\t or other modes\t of  termination  of
\nservice, or by joining another class of employees whether by
\npromotion  thereto or direct recruitment thereto on  passing
\nsome examination or by selection in some other mode.
\nIt  is clear that as between the members of the\t same  class
\nthe  question whether conditions of service are the same  or
\nnot may well arise.  If they are not, the question of denial
\nof  equal opportunity will require serious consideration  in
\nsuch  cases.   Does  the concept  of  equal  opportunity  in
\nmatters\t of  employment\t apply, however,  to  variations  in
\nprovisions  as\tbetween\t members  of  different\t classes  of
\nemployees under the State?  In our opinion, the answer\tmust
\nbe in the
\n316<\/span>
\nnegative.   The\t concept of equality can have  no  existence
\nexcept\t  with\t  reference    to    matters\twhich\t are
\ncommon\tas  between individuals, between  whom\tequality  is
\npredicated.\tEquality   of\topportunity    in    matters
\nof   employment\t  can\tbe  predicated\t only\tas   between
\npersons, who are either seeking the same employment, or have
\nobtained    the\t   same\t  employment.\t  It\twill,\t for
\nexample,  plainly  make\t no sense to say  that\tbecause\t for
\nemployment  as professors of colleges, a  higher  University
\ndegree\tis  required  than for\temployment  as\tteachers  of
\nschools, equality of opportunity is being denied.  Similarly
\nit  is\tmeaningless  to say that  unless  persons  who\thave
\nobtained  employment  as  school  teachers,  have  the\tsame
\nchances of promotion as persons who have obtained employment
\nas teachers in colleges, equality of opportunity is  denied.
\nThere is, in our opinion, no escape from the conclusion that
\nequality  of opportunity in matters of promotion, must\tmean
\nequality as between members of the same class of  employees,
\nand  not equality between members of  separate,\t independent
\nclasses.\n<\/p>\n
The  Petitioners’  Counsel did not seriously  challenge\t the
\ncorrectness  of\t the  above  proposition.   They   contended
\nhowever\t that  Road-side Station Masters and  Guards  really
\nform  one and the same class of employees.  In our  opinion,
\nthere  is  no substance in this contention.  It\t has  to  be
\nnoticed\t first\tthat  Appendix\t11  of\tthe  Indian  Railway
\nEstablishment  Code (Vol. 1) which prescribe rules  for\t the
\nrecruitment  and  training of subordinate  staff  of  Indian
\nRailways  classify  the subordinate staff  governed  by\t the
\nrules  into  7 branches: (1) Transportation  (Traffic);\t (2)
\nCommercial;   (3)   Transportation   (Power);\t(4)    Civil
\nEngineering ; (5) Store department Staff; (6) Office clerks
\nand  (7) Medical.  Each branch again has been  divided\tinto
\ngroups.\t   The\tfirst  branch,\ti.e.,\tthe   Transportation
\n(Traffic) is shown as having 3 groups: (i) Station  Masters,\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  Guards,  (iii)  Outdoor Clerical Staff.  Rule  2,\t the
\ndefinition  section defines a ” group ” to mean a series  of
\nclasses\t which form a normal channel of promotion.   Rule  8
\nshows the classes of posts
\n\t\t\t    317<\/span>
\nincluded  in  the  Station Masters’  group  and\t the  normal
\nchannels  of  their promotion which are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t       Signaller
\nAssist. Head Signallers\t\t   Assist.Station Masters
\n\t\t\t\t   (lower grade)
\nHead Signallers\t\t\t   Station Masters
\n\t\t\t\t   (lower grade)
\nTelegraph Inspectors\t\t   Assist.   controllers
\n\t\t\t\t   Assist.  Yard Foreman
\n\t\t\t\t   Station Masters
\n\t\t\t\t   Controllers
\n\t\t\t\t   Yard Foremen
\n\t       Transportation Inspectors
\nRule  9\t lays  down the\t qualifications\t necessary  for\t the
\nrecruitment  to\t this  “group”.\t  Rule\t10  says  that\t the
\nrecruitment  will be initially made as students and  further
\nprovides that the recruits may be (a) persons to be  trained
\nin telegraphy in railway telegraph training schools and\t (b)
\npersons\t who  have  completed a training  in  telegraphy  in
\nrecognized  private telegraph training schools.\t Note  2  of
\nthis Rule provides that recruits in either, category will on
\nthe  satisfactory completion of their training, be  eligible
\nfor  appointment as signallers and will remain on  probation
\nfor  one  year\tafter  such  appointment.  -Provisions\t for
\ntraining appear in Rule 11.  Rule 12 provides for  Refresher
\nand  Promotion\tCourses.  Rules 13 to 17 are in\t respect  of
\nGuards.\t  Rule 13 states the classes included in this  group
\nand the normal channels of their promotion thus:-
\nProbationary Guards
\nGoods or passengers guards
\nAssistant Station Masters (higher grades)
\nAssistant controllers
\nAssist.\t Yard Foremen
\nStation Masters
\nControllers
\nYard Foremen
\nTransportation Inspectors
\nRule   14  lays\t down  the  qualifications   necessary\t for
\nrecruitment in this line.  Rule 15 provides that the
\n41<\/span>
\n318<\/span>
\nrecruitment  will normally be to the lower grade of  Guards.
\nRule  16  provides  that  during  the  one  year  period  of
\nprobation recruits will undergo training for a period to  be
\nfixed  by  the\tadministration.\t Rule 17  provides  for\t the
\nperiodical refresher courses at stated\t     intervals\t and
\npromotion courses as necessary may be prescribed.
\nIn  deciding the question whether Road-side Station  Masters
\nand Guards belong to one and the same class  of employees or
\nnot,  we  must not be misled by the words ” groups  ”  or  ”
\nclasses\t of posts ” used in the above rules… The  crux  of
\nthe  question is the nature of the  differentiation  between
\nRoad-side   Station  Masters  and  Guards  in\trecruitment,
\nprospects  and\tpromotion.  We find that  Road-side  Station
\nMasters\t  and  Guards  are  recruited  separately,   trained
\nseparately  and\t the  several classes  of  posts  which\t are
\nordinarily open to them are also distinct and separate.\t The
\nonly  point of contact between them is provided by the\trule
\nthat  Guards may become Station Masters by passing the\tSlip
\n45  examination.   If after becoming Station  Masters  these
\nGuards\tcould  continue also as Guards there might  be\tsome
\nscope  for suggesting that the two classes  have  coalesced.
\nIt  is\tnot disputed however that Guards  once\tthey  become
\nStation\t Masters cease to be Guards and continue as  Station
\nMasters.   The\tfact that the qualifications  necessary\t for
\nrecruitment  as Guards or Station Masters are  approximately
\nor  even wholly the same can in no way affect  the  question
\nwhether they form one and the same class, or form  different
\nclasses.   As  on the admitted facts  the  Roadside  Station
\nMasters\t and  Guards  are,  as\talready\t stated,   recruited
\nseparately and trained separately and have separate  avenues
\nof promotion, the conclusion is irresistible that they\tform
\ntwo  distinct and separate classes as between whom there  is
\nno   scope  for\t predicating  equality\tor   inequality\t  of
\nopportunity in matters of promotion.\n<\/p>\n
In view of this conclusion it is unnecessary for the purpose
\nof the present case to decide the other question:    whether
\nmatters\t of  promotion are included in the words  ”  matters
\nrelating to employment\tin
\n\t\t\t    319<\/span>
\nArticle\t 16(1) of the Constitution.  For even assuming\tthat
\nthey  are  so  included, the  present  application  must  be
\nrejected on the simple ground that the petitioners belong to
\na  wholly  distinct. and separate class from Guards  and  so
\nthere  can  be\tno question of equality\t of  opportunity  in
\nmatters of promotion as between the petitioners and Guards.
\nThe  learned Counsel for the petitioners stated\t before\t  us
\nthat this channel of promotion for Guards is peculiar to the
\nCentral\t Railways, and is not now to be found in  the  other
\nZones  of  Indian Railways.  If that be\t the  position,\t the
\nmatter may well deserve the attention of the Government; but
\nthis  has  nothing  to do with the merits  of  the  petition
\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons mentioned above, we dismiss the application,
\nbut in view of all the circumstances, we order that  parties
\nwill bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
Petition dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India All India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central … on 20 November, 1959 Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 384, 1960 SCR (2) 311 Author: K D Gupta Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: ALL INDIA STATION MASTERS’& ASSISTANT STATION MASTER’S Vs. RESPONDENT: GENERAL MANAGER, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAll India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central ... on 20 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"All India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central ... on 20 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1959-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-06T05:58:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"All India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central … on 20 November, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T05:58:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959\"},\"wordCount\":2365,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959\",\"name\":\"All India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central ... on 20 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T05:58:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"All India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central … on 20 November, 1959\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"All India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central ... on 20 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"All India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central ... on 20 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-06T05:58:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"All India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central … on 20 November, 1959","datePublished":"1959-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T05:58:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959"},"wordCount":2365,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959","name":"All India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central ... on 20 November, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T05:58:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-station-masters-vs-general-manager-central-on-20-november-1959#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"All India Station Masters vs General Manager, Central … on 20 November, 1959"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42245","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42245"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42245\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}