http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: DIRECTOR GENERAL GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIAAND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA EMPLOYEESASSOCIATION.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/07/1991

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (2) 893        1991 SCC  Supl.  (2)  89  JT 1991 (3)    98        1991 SCALE  (2)39

ACT:      Civil Service-Exploration Wing of the Indian Bureau  of Mines  and  Geological Survey of  India-Merger-Whether  with effect   from   1.1.1966  of   from   4/6.2.1969-Provisional seniority   list  and  statement  of  introduction  to   the compilation-Whether constitute proof of merger.

HEADNOTE:      In Civil Appeal No. 855(N) of 1979 and Civil Appeal No. 2665 of 1991 the issue raised was common and relating to the date  of merger of the two departments of the Government  of India,  in  the  field of mines  and  minerals,  namely  (i) Exploration  Wing  of the Indian Bureau of Mines  (IBM)  and (ii) Geological Survey of India (GSI).      Between 1.1.1966 to 4.2.1969 thirty nine Lower Division Clerks  belonging  to GSI were promoted  as  Upper  Division Clerks  against the vacancies that arose in the  GSI.   They were  juniors  to  their  counterparts  in  the  IBM.  Being aggrieved  by  the  said  promotions,  the  respondents  who originally  belonged  to the IBM,  preferred  Special  Civil Application  in the Bombay High Court for setting aside  the seniority  list and for a direction to consider their  cases of promotion with effect from 1 January, 1966 and not from 4 February  1969 and therefore, there cannot be  two  separate channels  of  promotions from 1 January 1966- one  from  the employees of the Exploration Wing of IBM and another for the employees of GSI.      The appellants contended that the Officers of GSI  were promoted on the ground that the actual merger took place not on 1 January 1966 but on 4 February 1969.      The High Court allowed the petition against which Civil Appeal No. 855(N) of 1979 has been preferred.      A  Senior  Technological  Assistant  (Geology)  of  the erstwhile  IBM  moved the Karnataka High Court  for  similar relief contending inter                                                        894 alia  that  this  case ought to  have  been  considered  for promotion  in  the merger cadre with effect from  1  January 1966. The Karnataka High Court also allowed his claim with a direction  to consider him for promotion  with  effect  from 1  January 1966 in the merged cadre. That decision  was  not implemented  by the GSI. In the contempt  proceedings  taken

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

for disobedience of the judgment, the High Court allowed six weeks time for compliance, against which, SLP(C) No. 4906 of 1991 has been preferred.     Respondents  relying  on the letters dated  10  December 1965  and  29  November 1966 contended  in  support  of  the decision of the High Courts that the merger took place on  1 January  1966, whereas the appellants took  assistance  from terms  of the letter dated 4/6 February 1969 in  support  of the counter plea.     Allowing the appeals, this Court,     HELD: 1. The statements in the letter make it abundantly clear  that  it  was  only  administrative  control  of  the relevant  wings  of  IBM that were transfered  to  GSI  with effect from 1 January 1966. The letter does not refer to the decision of merger of the two departments. [902E]     2.  The  decision taken on the merger of the  posts  was communicated  by subsequent letters dated 28 June  1967  and 4/6  February  1969.  By letter dated  28th  June  1967  the Government  communicated the sanction of merger of  class  I JUDGMENT: IBM and GSI (Proper) with immediate effect. The letter  also contains   certain instructions to department about  service conditions  and  seniority  of persons  in  the  amalgamated cadres  of class I & II posts. The decision with  regard  to merger in respect of other categories of posts which include are  concerned   in these cases is contained in  the  letter dated 4/6 February 1969. [902F-G]     3.  The letter dated 4/6 February 1969 further  provides the  inter-se  seniority  of the incumbent   in  the  merged cadres  will be governed in accordance with  the  principles laid  down in the earlier letter dated 28th June  1967.  The merger/revision  of the scales of pay does not  involve  any change in the nature of duties of the respective posts.  The Officers concerned in the merged cadre will be given options in  writing for opting the new scales of pay in the  merged. In case an individual concerned fails to exercise the option within  the time limit, he will be treated to have  accepted the new scale of pay. It will be apparent from the terms  of the letter dated 4/6 February 1969 that the posts                                                        895 referred  to in the letter were merged with GSI with  effect from 4 February  1969 would be unnecessary and uncalled for. [903A-C]     4.  Provisional  seniority  list and  the  statement  of introduction to the  compilation are no evidence of the date of merger do not reflect the decision of the Govt. of India. [905E]

&     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 855  (n) of 1979.     From the Judgment and Order dated 22nd October, 1975  of the  Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.  985 of 1969.                             WITH     Civil Appeal No. 2665 of 1991.     M. Chander Sekhar, Additional Solicitor General (NP), A. Subba Rao and C.V. Subba Rao for the Appellants.     R.K. Garg, R.P. Singh, Rakesh Khanna, P.C. Kapur and Raj Kumar Gupta for the Respondents.     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     K.  JAGANNATHA  SHETTY, J.  In the field  of  mines  and minerals,  the Government of India has two departments,  (i)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Exploration  Wing  of the Indian Bureau of Mines  (IBM)  and (ii)   Geological  Survey  of  India  (GSI).  The   GSI   is responsible for geological mapping and exploratory  drilling calculated  to delineate mineralised zones in  the  country. The  IBM  conducts detailed probing operations  in  selected blocks  of  mineralised areas. The functions  of  these  two departments were found to be overlapping. The Government  of India,  therefore, decided to merge the Exploratory Wing  of IBM  with  the  GSI  to  eliminate  overlapping  works   and rationalise  the  functions  of  the  two  departments.   To accomplish this purpose, different cadres of the Exploration Wing  of IBM were merged with the GSI from different  dates. There is no dispute that the posts concerned in these  cases also came to be merged with the GSI. The question,  however, for consideration is about the date of that merger:  whether it was from 1 January, 1966 or from any subsequent date. The Government  of India contends that the merger took place  on 4/6  February  1969 while the contesting  respondents  claim that it was with effect from 1 January 1966.     The dispute as to the date of merger has arisen  because of the                                                        896 following  circumstances.  That between  the period  from  1 January 1966 to 4 February 1969, thirty nine persons in  the cadre  of  Lower  Division  Clerks  belonging  to  GSI  were promoted as Upper Division Clerks against the vacancies that arose  in  the GSI. They were apparently  juniors  to  their counterparts  in  the  IBM.  Being  aggrieved  by  the  said promotions,  the Association of the Officers who  originally belonged to the IBM preferred Special Civil Application  No. 985/69  at  Nagpur Bench of the Bombay of  the  Bombay  High Court  for  setting  aside  the seniority  list  and  for  a direction  to consider their cases of promotion with  effect from 1 January 1966. It was contended before the High  Court that  the  merger  of the two departments  took  place  with effect from 1 January 1966 and not from 4 February 1969  and therefore,   there  cannot  be  two  separate  channels   of promotions from 1 January  1966-one for the employees of the Exploration  Wing  of IBM and another for the  employees  of GSI.   The  Government  of  India  sought  to  justify   the promotions exclusively given to the Officers of GSI  between the  period  from 1 January 1966 to 4 February 1969  on  the ground  that the actual merger took place not on  1  January 1966  but on 4 February 1969. the High Court,  however,  did not  accept the submission of the Government of  India.  The High Court summarised its conclusion thus:          ‘‘It  is also to be noted that after  1.1.1966  the          petitions  did  not get any promotion or  were  not          considered  for promotion by the Indian  Bureau  of          Mines   because   they  were  treated   under   the          administrative  control  of  Geological  Survey  of          India.   If  the contention of the  respondents  is          accepted  then  it will have to be  held  that  for          three years the cases of the petitioners cannot  be          considered  by the Geological Survey of  India  and          they  were not considered by the Indian  Bureau  of          Mines    because   they   were   not   under    the          administrative  control of Indian Bureau of  Mines.          This  will  result into absurdity  and,  therefore,          such  a  contention  cannot be  accepted.  We  are,          therefore, inclined to hold on consideration of the          annexures   produced along with this petition  that          the  merger  in the two wings has taken   place  on          1.1.1966.   Therefore,  the  seniority   of   Upper          Division Clerks will have to be considered and made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

        in  this light after taking into consideration  the          fact  that  the petitioners merged and  became  the          part of Geological Survey of India on 1.1.1966 and,          therefore,  for  the  purpose  of  counting   their          seniority,  their  past service rendered  with  the          Indian  Bureau of Mines will have to be treated  as          service  rendered  with the  Geological  Survey  of          India. This                                                        897          is   the  correct effect of the letter  R-2  relied          upon by the respondents. We, therefore, direct  the          respondent  Nos.  1,  2, & 4  to  prepare  a  fresh          seniority  list  in the light of  the  observations          made  above  as if the merger has  taken  place  on          1.1.1966 and after determining inter seniority give          an appropriate relief to the petitioners.’’     Civil  Appeal  No.  855(N) of 1979  has  been  preferred against the above decision of the Bombay High Court.     A   Senior  Technological  Assitant  (Geology)  of   the erstwhile  IBM  moved the Karnataka High Court  for  similar relief  contending  inter-alia that his case ought  to  have been  considered  for  promotion in the  merged  cadre  with effect  from 1 January 1966. The Karnataka High  Court  also allowed   his  claim with a direction to  consider  him  for promotion  with  effect  from 1 January 196  in  the  merged cadre. That decision was not implemented by the GSI, perhaps on  the ground that the dispute as to the date of merger  is already  pending  consideration before this  Court.  In  the contempt proceedings taken for disobedience of the judgment, the  High  Court however, did not accept  that  excuse   put forward by the GSI and Government of India, but allowed  six weeks time for compliance. SLP(C) No. 4906 of 1991 has  been preferred  against that direction  issued by  the  Karnataka High  Court. Since the issue raised in both the  matters  is common, we grant special leave in this case also.     The  issue as to the date of merger of  the  Exploration Wing  IBM  with  GSI turns on the contents of  some  of  the letters  written by the Government of India to the  Director General  of  GSI.  Both the parties  depend  upon  the  same letters but with different contentions and constructions. We will now draw attention to the letters one by one.          (i)  ‘‘LETTER DATED 10 DECEMBER 1965 GOVERNMENT  OF          INDIA  MINISTRY OF STEEL AND MINES,  DEPARTMENT  OF          MINES AND METALS.          To          The Director,          Indian Bureau of Mines,          Nagpur.               (For the attention of Sh. K.N. Murthy,               Deputy Director, IBM)                                                        898          Sub: Reorganisation of the IBM and GSI.          Sir,               xxxxx    xxxxx    xxxxx               After  careful  consideration  of  all   these          matters and in consultation with Director  General,          GSI  and  IBM,  the  Government   have  decided  to          transfer   the  following  from  the  IBM  to   the          administrative  control  of  the  GSI  w.e.f.   1st          January 1966:          (i) All the posts and personnel in the  Prospecting          Drilling and Mining Divisions of the Bureau will be          transferred to the GSI as detailed in Appendices  I          & II.          (ii)  The  workshop  and  Mineral  Technology   and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

        Physical Analysis Laboratories will transferred  to          the GSI along with the posts in these  laboratories          as detailed in Appendix II.          (iii)  The  posts  in  the  common  cadres  in  the          Administration   and Accounting Divisions  as  have          been  on the basis of actual work load as  detailed          in  Appendix  II. The personnel holding  the  posts          will  be  allocated to the GSI and the IBM  on  the          basis  of options indicated by them, the  principal          guideline  being exigency of public service.          (iv)  The equipment, vehicles and stores,  will  be          transferred by the IBM to the GSI according to  the          distribution  made on the basis of  equipment  etc.          being   required  by  the  organisations   as   per          statement in Appendix III.          2.  The headquarters  of the Prospecting,  Drilling          and Mining Divisions, as also the workshop and  the          Mineral    Technology   and    Physical    Analysis          Laboratories, which are being transferred from  the          Bureau  to the GSI, will continue to be at  Nagpur.          On transfer of these Divisions, these will work  as          separate entity of the GSI under the administrative          control of the DG, GSI. Headquarters of the Mineral          Technology  Laboratory  at Delhi will  continue  to          remain at Delhi.                                                        899          3.  The service conditions of the personnel  to  be          transferred to the GSI such as status,  emoluments,          seniority  etc.  will be governed by  the  existing          recruitment rules until further orders.          4.   The   IBM   will  be   responsible   for   the          administration of Mines  (Control and conservation)          collection of statistical data of minerals and  Ore          Dressing Laboratory as here to before.          5.  With effect from 1.1.1966 the GSI will  provide          in their budget the expenditure connected with  the          work transferred to them from the IBM and  put up a          Supplementary          demand.  Correspondingly  IBM  will  surrender  the          L(equivalent) amount from its budget.’’          (ii) LETTER DATED 28 JUNE 1967 GOVERNMENT OF  INDIA          MINISTRY  OF  STEEL MINES & METALS,  DEPARTMENT  OF          MINES AND METALS.          To          The Director General,          Geological Survey of India,          27, Chowringhee Road,          Calcutta-13          Sub: Merger of Class I and II posts in the Drilling          Divisions of the Geological Survey of India (Proper          and Exploration Wing) and combined seniority lists.          Sir,                In  partial modification of the  Ministry  of          Steel  and  Mines (Department of  Mines  &  Metals)          letter  No. 20/4/65-MIII dated 10 December 1965,  I          am convey sanction of the Government to merge class          I  and  II posts in the Drilling Divisions  of  the          Exploration   Wing  and the  Geological  Survey  of          India  (Proper) with immediate effect.  Heretofore,          the  service  conditions  of the  class  I  and  II          officers   of  Drilling  category  of  the   merged          Drilling  Division would be governed in  accordance          with the revised recruitment rules which are  under          issue separately.                                                        900

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

        2.  In drawing up the combined seniority  lists  of          the officers in different grades in the amalgamated          cadres  of  Class  I and II posts  para  3  of  the          annexure  to the Ministry of Home Affairs O.M.  No.          9/11/55-RPS  dt.  22.12.1958  according  to   which          permanent  officers  of  the grade  are  senior  to          temporary  officiating  officers of that grade,  is          not   applicable.  In  such  cases,  seniority   is          determined   with   reference   to  the   date   of          continuous appointment  to that grade on a  regular          basis  in  accordance  with  the  other  principles          prescribed in the Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No.          dt. 23.12.1959 referred to above lists so drawn may          please be sent for approval of Government.                                            Yours faithfully,                                                   Sd/-                                          (A. Sethumadhavan)                       Under Secretary to the Govt. of India          (iii) LETTER DATED 4/6 FEBRUARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA          MINISTRY OF STEEL, MINES AND METALS (DEPARTMENT  OF          MINES AND METALS)          No. 1/16/68-MIII          To          The Director General,          Geological Survey of India,          Calcutta.          Sub:  Merger  of  Posts/scales of pay  in  the  GSI          (Proper) and the Exploration Wing transferred  from          the Indian Bureau of Mines to the Geological Survey          of India.          Sir,                I  am  directed to invite your  attention  to          this  Ministry’s  letter  No.  3/17/67-MIII,  dated          28.6.1967 and to say that the President is  pleaded          to  sanction merger of the posts and  to  prescribe          the scales of pay for the merged cadres as shown in          the  enclosed  statement  with  immediate   effect.          Orders regarding merger of the remaining posts will          be issued separately.                                                        901          2.  The inter-seniority of the incumbents   in  the          merged cadres will governed in accordance with  the          principles  laid down in para 2 of  the  Ministry’s          letter referred to above.          3.  The merger/revision of the scales of  pay  does          not involve any change in the nature and duties  of          the  respective posts. The fixation of pay  in  the          revised scales of pay may be done under FR-23, read          with audit instruction 1 under FR-22.          4.  The  officers  concerned  should  be  asked  to          exercise their option in writing so as to reach the          authority concerned within four months of the issue          of this letter, provided that:               (i) in the case of a Government servant who is          on  that date out of India on leave, deputation  or          foreign service  or active service, the said option          shall  be exercised in writing so as to  reach  the          prescribed authority within four months of the date          of  his taking over charge of his post in  the  GSI          and               (ii)  Where  a  Government  servant  is  under          suspension  the  option  may be  exercised  by  him          within  four  months of the date of his  return  to          duty,   if  that  date  is  later  than  the   date          prescribed here.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

   In  case the individual concerned fails to exercise  the option  within  the time limit, he will be treated  to  have accepted the new scale of pay.’’     In between these correspondence, the Government of India wrote one more letter to the Director General of GSI. It was dated 29 November, 1966 which will be referred later.     Mr.   Garg  and  Mr.  Vaidyanathan,  counsel   for   the contesting  respondents  rely on the first letter  dated  10 December  1965  and also on the subsequent letter  dated  29 November 1966 in support of the  decision of the High Courts that the merger took place on 1 January 1966. Mr. Subba Rao, counsel for the Union of India wants to take assistance from the  terms of the letter dated 1/6 February 1969 in  support of the counter plea. It may be significant to note that  the letter dated 10 December 1965 does not indicate the date  of merger. It is                                                        902 stated  therein  that after consultation with  the  Director General  of  GSI  and IBM, the  Government  has  decided  to transfer  to the administrative control of GSI  with  effect from  1  January  1966  the  posts  and  personnel  in   the prospecting  drilling  and mining divisions  of  the  Bureau with the workshop, mineral technology and physical  analysis laboratories.  The letter further states that the  posts  in the  common  cadres  in the  administration  and  accounting divisions  as have been divided on the basis of actual  work load (as detailed in Appendix II) with the personnel holding the  post will be allocated to GSI and IBM on the  basis  of options  indicated  by  them. The  equipment,  vehicles  and stores  will be transferred by IBM to GSI according  to  the distribution   made   as  per  requirements   of   the   two organisations.  The most important statements in the  letter are  these:  (i)  on transfer of  the  divisions  they  will however  work  as  separate  entity of  the  GSI  under  the administrative control of the Director General, GSI and (ii) the service conditions of the personnel to be transferred to GSI such status, emoluments, seniority etc. will be governed by  the existing recruitment rules until further orders.  It is  further  directed in the letter that  with  effect  from January  1966,  the  GSI will provide in  their  budget  the expenditure connected with the work transferred to them from the IBM and put up a supplementary demand.  Correspondingly, IBM will surrender the (equivalent) amount from the  budget. These statements in the letter make it abundantly clear that it was only administrative control of the relevant Wings  of IBM that were transferred to GSI with effect from 1  January 1966. The letter does not refer to the decision of merger of the two departments.     The decision taken on the merger of the posts as rightly submitted  by Mr. Subba Rao was communicated  by  subsequent letters dated 28 June 1967 and 4/6 February 1969. By  letter dated 28 June 1967 the Government communicated the  sanction of  merger of class I & II posts in the  drilling  divisions of  Exploration Wing of IBM and GSI (Proper) with  immediate effect.  The  letter also contains certain  instructions  to department about service conditions and seniority of persons in  the  amalgamated  cadres  of class I  &  II  posts.  The decision   with  regard  to  merger  in  respect  of   other categories  of  posts is contained in the letter  dated  4/6 February 1969. Thereunder it is expressly stated that  ‘‘the President is pleased to sanction merger of the posts and  to prescribe  the scales of pay for the merged cadres as  shown in  the enclosed statement accompanying the  letter  include the  posts  with which we are concerned in these  cases  and there is no dispute on this matter.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

                                                      903     The letter dated 4/6 February 1969 further provides that the  inter-se  seniority of the incumbents   in  the  merged cadres  will be governed in accordance with  the  principles laid  down  in the earlier letter dated 28  June  1967.  The merger/revision  of the scales of pay does not  involve  any change in the nature of duties of the respective posts.  The officers  concerned  in  the  merged  cadre  will  be  given options  in writing for opting the new scales of pay in  the merged  cadre.  In  case an individual  concerned  fails  to exercise  the  option  within the time  limit,  he  will  be treated  to have accepted the new scale of pay. It  will  be apparent  from the terms of the letter dated  4/6   February 1969  that the posts referred to in the letter  were  merged with GSI with effect from 4 February 1966, as contended  for the respondents, the letter dated 4/6 February 1969 would be unnecessary and uncalled for.     Counsel  for  the  respondents  however,  placed  strong reliance in support of the counter point on the letter dated 29 November 1966 which reads as follows:                                         GOVERNMENT OF INDIA          No. 8/39/66-MIII           NEW DELHI 29TH NOV. 1966          To          The Director General,          Geological Survey of India,          27, Chowringhee Lane,          Calcutta 13          Sub:-    Absorption   of  Shri   B.K.   Chatterjee,          Stenographer (Selection Grade) of the Indian Bureau          of   Mines,   in   Geological   Survey   of   India          (Exploration Wing).          Sir,                 I  am directed to refer to your  letter  No.          832/8 (N)/115/65/15 dated 4.11.1966 on the  subject          mentioned   and to say that transfer   in  question          cannot be termed as transfer from one department to          the other department, since it place on a result of          the  reorganisation of the Indian Bureau  of  Mines          and transfer was effected on the recommenda-                                                        904          tions  of  the Merger Committee when  there  was  a          vacancy  in the GSI. The transfer was made  in  the          public interest and it is considered not  necessary          to  approve the transfer in question in  relaxation          of the recruitment Rules as proposed. The  transfer          of Shri Chatterjee may be treated as in order.               Further,  the inter-seniority of  Stenographer          and other categories of posts  transferred from the          Bureau  to  the  Geological Survey of  India  as  a          result  of the reorganisation of the former may  be          decided  taking  into account the  fact  that  such          transfers have been made in the public interest and          such  cases may be examined on the basis as if  the          individual  concerned were originally appointed  in          the Geological Survey of India.                                            Yours faithfully,                                                         Sd/-                                           (A. Sethumadhavan)                            Under Secy. to the Govt. of India     We  do  not  find any support from this  letter  to  the submission of the respondents. The letter concerns with  the transfer  of  one Stenographer called Shri  B.K.  Chatterjee from  IBM  to the GSI. The transfer was made in  the  public interest.   Consequently.  it  was  held  that  the   person transferred  was  entitled  to  seniority  as  if  he   were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

originally  appointed in the GSI. That is a normal  incident of  transfer  from one department to another  and  there  is nothing  strange  in  it.  But it  may  be  noted  that  the respondents were not transferred from IBM to GSI with effect from  1 January 1966. They were neither transferred to  GSI, nor  their posts were transferred to GSI with effect from  1 January   1966.   They   were   only   brought   under   the administrative  control of the Director  General of GSI. The result  is that the posts  and personnel remained  in  their own  department and they would continue to  be  governed  by their  own  service  conditions. This would  indeed  be  the consequence  of  one  department  being  brought  under  the control  or supervision of another departmental  head.  This point has also been made clear in the letter dated 1 January 1966  in  which  it has been  provided  ‘‘that  the  service conditions  of  the personnel to be transferred to  the  GSI such as status, emoluments, seniority  etc. will be governed by  the existing recruitment  rules until further  orders’’. In other words, the service conditions which the respondents were entitled to, in their parent department would  continue to be available to them until further orders.                                                        905     The Bombay High Court has however, observed that it will lead  to  absurdity if the contesting  respondents  are  not considered  for  promotion in the GSI from  1  January  1966 since  they  could  not get any promotion  in  or  were  not considered  for promotion by IBM because they  were  treated under  administrative  control of GSI. It  is  difficult  to accept this view. This conclusion is based more on equitable consideration  than on law. It is the result of  failure  to focus on the difference between  the terms of letters  dated 1  January 1966 and 4/6 February 1969. It may be  emphasised that  non-consideration  of the contesting  respondents  for promotion  in the  IBM during the period from 1966  to  1969 even assuming it to be true is however no ground for them to seek promotion in GSI. They must seek their promotion during the interregnum only in their parent department.     Reference is made to the combined provisional  seniority list of persons in class III cadres of IBM and GSI  prepared as  on 1 December 1968. It is submitted that if  the  merger took  place with effect from 4 February 1969 there  were  no necessity for GSI to  prepare the provisional seniority list of  officers  of the combined cadre as on 1  December  1968. Reference  is  also  made  to  the  ‘‘Introduction  to   the compilation Vol. 100 Part I, Records of the GSI’’, in  which it is mentioned that on 1 January 1966, the Mining Divisions of  the  IBM  have  been  merged  with  the  GSI.  The  said provisional seniority list and the statement of introduction to  the compilation, in our opinion, are no evidence of  the date of merger and indeed, they do not reflect the  decision of the Government of India which we have earlier discussed.     For  the foregoing reasons,  we accept the  appeals  and set aside the impugned judgment and order.     In the circumstances of the case, however, there  should not be  any order as to costs. V.P.R.                                      Appeals allowed.                                                        906