http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: N.   SUBBA RAO ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/08/1972

BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) DUA, I.D. PALEKAR, D.G. BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1973 AIR   69            1973 SCR  (1) 945  1972 SCC  (2) 862  CITATOR INFO :  R          1973 SC2102  (17,22)  F          1974 SC 457  (7,8,12,13)  F          1974 SC1502  (8)  F          1974 SC1631  (19)  F          1974 SC2164  (5)  R          1976 SC 214  (10)  R          1981 SC2181  (27)  D          1989 SC 357  (22)

ACT: The  States  Reorganisation  Act,  1955,  s.  115-Powers  of Central  Government  under-Effect  of  proviso  to  s.   115 (7)Question whether, State Government has changed conditions of  service within the meaning of the proviso is a  question to be decided by Central Government Natural  justice-Central Govt. order dated 22/24 Dec. 1965 whether invalid because of denial of natural justice.

HEADNOTE: The State of Andhra Pradesh which came into existence  under the  States  Reorganisation Act 1956 was formed out  of  the former State of Andhra and the Telengana area of the  former State  of Hyderabad.  The appellants were engineers  in  the employment  of Andhra State.  On the formation of the  State of Andhra Pradesh the appellants under the provisions of the Act  continued  to serve the State of Andhra  Pradesh.   The respondents who were Telengana Officers in the employment of the  State  of  Hyderabad continued to serve  the  State  of Andhra Pradesh.  Prior to the reorganisation a Conference of Chief  Secretaries was held in the months of April  and  May 1956, and certain principles were laid down for the equation of posts in the two services namely, the services of  Andhra State and Hyderabad State which were to be allocated to  the State  of  Andhra  Pradesh.  The factors to  be  taken  into consideration  for  the fixation of inter  se  seniority  of officers  holding  equivalent  posts  were  laid  down.   In determining  the  length of continuous service  periods  for which  an  appointment  was held in  a  purely  stop-gap  or fortuitous  arrangement  were to be excluded.   In  November

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

1961  the  State Government of Andhra  Pradesh,  prepared  a provisional  common gradation list of gazetted  officers  in the  Public  Works  Department.   The  Telengana   engineers challenged the lists in the High Court and this Court.   The result of the litigation was that the Central Government was asked  to  take  immediate steps to  finalise  the  list  of integration in the manner prescribed in s. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act 1956 on the materials placed before it by the  State  Government.  The Central Government  after  con- sidering  representations  made  by  the  officers  of   the Telengana  area  and the Andhra State gave on  December  24, 1965 its final decision concerning the equation of posts and inter se seniority of officers holding equivalent posts.  In its  decision the Central Government Inter alia pointed  out hit the action taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh  in regularising with retrospective effect and in relaxation  of the  normal  rules, the temporary appointments made  in  the erstwhile  Andhra State to the posts of Assistant  Engineers and  Executive  Engineers by Promotion from the  next  lower category of officers, had the effect of altering the service conditions  of  Andhra  employees to the  detriment  of  the interest  of the employees from the Telengana unit  and  was therefore  invalid.   The Andhra Pradesh Government  made  a strong  representation to the Central  Government  defending such regularisation.  The Central Government by order  dated 22/24  December, 1966, in partial modification of the  order dated   December  24,  1965,  accepted   the   retrospective regularisation  of service in respect of certain classes  of officers.   In  the consequent writ petition filed  lay  the Telengana and Andhra Officers the High Court inter alia held :  (i)  that the decision of the Government of  India  dated 22/24 1966 11--L172Sup CI/73 946 was liable to be quashed on the ground that it violated  the principles  of natural justice and (ii) that  the  temporary promotion of Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers  in the Andhra State prior to November 1, 1956 were stop-gap and fortuitous  arrangements.  The High Court did not  give  any decision  on  the merits of the  question  of  retrospective regularisation  of the services of the Andhra  Engineers  on the  equation  of  posts.   In  appeals  to  this  Court  by certificate, HELD  : The High Court correctly held that the order of  the Central  Government  dated  22/24  December  1966  was  made without  giving the Telengana area Officers any  opportunity of making representation against the course of action  which the Central Government adopted by that decision.  The  order was liable to be quashed. [954H-955A] It  was not necessary to express any opinion as  to  whether the  services  of  Andhra State Officers  were  stop-gap  or fortuitous  arrangements.  Under the  States  Reorganisation Act  power is conferred on the Central Government  to  bring about  the  integration of services in the State  of  Andhra Pradesh  by  ensuring fair and equitable  treatment  to  all persons  affected  by the provisions of s. 115 of  the  Act. The observations of the High Court on the temporary  service of  the  Andhra  Officers  to  be  stop-gap  or   fortuitous arrangements must therefore be set aside. [955H] In  Raghavendra  Rao’s case this Court said that  the  broad purpose underlying the proviso to s. 115 (7) of the Act  was to  ensure  that  the conditions of service  should  not  be changed  except  with  the prior  approval  of  the  Central Government  under Art. 309 of the Constitution the power  of the  State  is preserved to make rules.  The proviso  to  s.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

115(7)  of the Act imposes a limitation on the State not  to vary the contitions of service applicable immediately before November 1, 1956 to the disadvantage of persons mentioned in sub-sections  (1) or (2) of s. 115 of the Act.  If there  is any question of change of conditions of service it will have to  be  found out whether in the first place it  amounts  to change in the conditions of service and. if so, secondly  to find  out  whether there was prior approval of  the  Central Government.  It will be within the province of the  decision of the Central Government under a. 115 of the Act in  regard to the integration of services and ensuring fair and  equit- able treatment to all persons to determine the retrospective regularisation  and relaxation of rules will amount  to  any change in the conditions of service or will result in denial of  fair  and  equitable treatment to  any  of  the  persons affected thereby. [957C,958B] [Central Government directed to proceed with the integration of  services  of Telengana area Officers  and  Andhra  State Officers  and  to  determine the  principles  governing  the equation  of  posts  and to prepare  gradation  lists  after eiving  opportunity  to the persons affected to  make  their representations.] Union  of India & Anr. v. P. K. Roy & Ors. [1968]  2  S.C.R. 186 and N.Raghavendra Rao v. Deputy Commissioner, South Kanara, Mangalore [1964] 7 S.C.R. 549, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  2436  to 2439 of 1969. Appeals from the judgment and orders dated February 23, 1968 of  the  Andhra  Pradesh High Court  at  Hyderabad  in  Writ Petitions Nos. 1363 of 1966, 799, 833 and 1439 of 1967  res- pectively.                             947 D.   V. Patel, Y. Suryanarayana, M. J. Rao, P. L. N. Sharma G.   Narayana Rao for the appellants (in all appeals). Jagadish  Swarup, Solicitor-General of India, S.  N.  Prasad and S.    P.  Nayar,  for respondent No. 1. (in  C.As.  Nos. 2436  & 2439/69)  Respondent No. 113 (in C.A.  No.  2437/69) and Respondent No.  10 (in C.A. No. 2438/69). P. Ram Reddy and K. Jayaram, for respondent No. 2, (in  C.A. No. 2436 & 2439/69) Respondent No. 14 (in C.A. No.  2437/69) and Respondent No. 9 (in C.A. No. 2438/69). H.   S.  Gururaja  Rao and S. Markhandeya,  for  respondents Nos. 3-38.:(in  C.A. No. 2436/69), for respondents  Nos. 1-12 (in C.A. No. 2437/69) and respondents Nos. 1-8 (in C.A. No. 2438/69). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray,  J.  These  four appeals are by  certificate  from  the common  judgment dated 23 February, 1968 of the Andhra  Pra- desh High Court. The subject-matter of these appeals relates to the  equation of  posts  and integration of services of  officers  of  the Public  Works  Department  in the State  of  Andhra  Pradesh consequent on the reorganisation of States in the year 1956. On  1 November, 1956 the State of Andhra Pradesh  came  into existence under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (herein- after referred to as the Act).  The State of Andhra  Pradesh was  formed  out  of  the former State  of  Andhra  and  the Telengana  area of the former Hyderabad  State  (hereinafter referred to as the Andhra State and the Telengana area). The  appellants were Engineers in the employment  of  Andhra Slate.  On the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

appellants  under  the provisions of the  Act  continued  to serve the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The respondents who were Telengana  officers  in  the  employment  of  the  State  of Hyderabad continued to serve the State of Andhra Pradesh. Prior   to   the  reorganisation  a  Conference   of   Chief Secretaries  was held in the months of April and May,  1956. It was agreed at the Conference that four principles  should be  followed  for  equation of posts in  the  two  services, namely,  the  services of Andhra State and  Hyderabad  which were to be allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh.   These four  principles  were: first, the nature and  duties  of  a post; second, the responsibilities and powers 948 exercised  by  the officers holding a post;  the  extent  of territorial   or  other  charge  held  or   responsibilities discharged;  third,  the  minimum  qualifications,  if  any, prescribed for the two posts and fourthly, the salary of the post. In  regard  to  the fixation of the  inter-se  seniority  of officers  holding equivalent posts it was agreed that  three factors  should be taken into consideration.  The first  was the  length  of  continuous  service  whether  temporary  or permanent in a particular grade.  This length could  exclude periods  for which an appointment is held in a purely  stop- gap or fortuitous arrangement.  The second consideration was the  age  of  the person, other  factors  being  equal,  for instance, seniority might be determined on the basis of age. Thirdly,  as  far  as possible, the  inter-se  seniority  of officers drawn from the same State should not be disturbed. The  Central  Government  in the month  of  September,  1956 directed the State Government to draw up provisional  common gradation list keeping in view the general principles agreed to at the Conference of the Chief Secretaries. It  may be stated that out of the former State of  Hyderabad some  areas  were transferred to Mysore and some  to  Bombay which became Maharashtra and the Telengana area became  part of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Under  the States Reorganisation Act the questions  relating to  equation  of posts and integration of  services  of  the employees  of Andhra and Hyderabad States are to be  decided finally  by the Central Government.  Section 115 of the  Act in  subsection (5) provides that the Central Government  may by  order establish one or more Advisory Committees for  the purpose  of assisting it in regard to (a) the  division  and integration  of services among the new States and the  State of  Andhra Pradesh and Madras, and (b) the ensuring of  fair and  equitable  treatment  to all persons  affected  by  the provisions  of this section and the proper consideration  of any representations made by such persons. The  Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh  constituted   Advisory Committees  for  integration  of  services  of  Andhra   and Hyderabad  States and preparation of common gradation  lists for all service personnel in Andhra Pradesh.  There were two Advisory  Committees.  One was with respect to the  gazetted staff and the other with respect to non-gazetted staff.  The conclusions of the Advisory Committees were reviewed by  the State  Government and the opinion of the Central  Government was sought and adopted by the State Government on  decisions to be taken. 9 4 9 Thereafter  in  the month of April, 1957 the  Government  of India  informed  the  State Government of  its  decision  to establish two Advisory Committees one at the Centre and  the other  in the State for assisting the Central Government  in dealing  with  all representations  from  service  personnel

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

affected by the reorganisation. Following  the recommendation of the Advisory  Committee  on the integration of gazetted services of Public Works Depart- ment and the suggestions made by the Government of India the State  Government in the month of December, 1960  laid  down certain   principles   for  integration  of   services   and preparation of common gradation list of Andhra and Hyderabad personnel  belonging to gazetted Engineering Service of  the Public  Works Department.  The State Government  prepared  a provisional  common gradation list of gazetted  officers  in the month of November, 1961. The Telengana Engineers challenged the common gradation list by  writ  petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High  Court.   The Telengana Engineers challenged the equation of’ posts of the Sub-Engineers  and  Divisional  Engineers to  the  posts  of Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers respectively  in Andhra  and the fixation of their inter se  seniority.   The grievance of the Telengana Engineers was that the Government of  Andhra  Pradesh  had given preference  to  personnel  of Andhra State by retrospectively relaxing rules in respect of probation  as  well  as qualification in  favour  of  Andhra Engineers.  According to the Telengana Engineers the  result of  the  relaxation of rules was that Andhra  Engineers  who could not be considered senior to Telengana Engineers on the appointed day, namely, 1 November 1956 were given seniority. The High Court in the month of July, 1964 dismissed the writ petitions  on  the ground that Telengana  Engineers  had  an alternative  remedy by way of representation to the  Central Government under section 115(5) of the Act. The  Telengana  Engineers  thereafter  filed  petitions  for special  leave to appeal to this Court against the  judgment of  the  Andhra petitions in Pradesh Court.   The  Telengana Engineers  also  filed this Court under Article  32  of  the Constitution.  On 22 January, 1965 this Court dismissed  the Writ Petitions and gave leave to the Telengana Engineers  to withdraw  the  petitions for special leave.  This  Court  in passing the orders said, "We hope and trust that the Central Government will take immediate steps to finalise the list of integration  in the manner prescribed in section 115 of  the States  Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the State to place  all the   necessary  Government  will  take   expedition   steps materials before it." 950 The Central Government thereafter on 24 December, 1965 after considering  the  representations made by the  personnel  of both the Telengana area and the Andhra State gave its  final decision  concerning  the  equation of posts  and  inter  se seniority  of  officers holding equivalent  posts.   Broadly stated, the Central Government equalised the posts of Andhra State  and  Telengana area under four  categories.   In  the first  category  were placed Chief Engineers of  Andhra  and Telengana.     In   the   second   category   were    placed Superintending  Engineers  of both the  places.   The  third category went to Executive Engineers of Andhra and Executive Engineer  as well as Divisional Engineer of Telengana  area. The Divisional Engineers of Telengana area were to be placed en  bloc at the end of third category.  In the  fourth  cate Crory  were  placed the Assistant Engineers  of  Andhra  and Telengana  and  thereafter sub-Engineer  and  Sub-Divisional Officer of Telengana.  As to Sub-Engineers of Telengana area the  decision was that they were to be placed en bloc  below the Assistant Engineers from both the regions of Andhra  and Telengana..  Again, the Sub-Divisional Officers were  to  be placed en bloc at the bottom of the category. Apart from equalisation of posts the Central Government laid

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

down  four  principles with regard  to  inter.se  seniority. First,  it was said that the pre-probation service  rendered by the Andhra Officers which did not count for increments in the  parent  State  should not be  taken  into  account  for determining their Inter-: State seniority in the  integrated gradation list of the Engineer Officers of the Public  Works Department  of the Reorganised State.  The second  principle was that as for the Executive Engineers from Hyderabad,  the service  rendered  as  Divisional Engineers  should  not  be counted  towards their seniority in the cadre  of  Executive Engineers.   The third principle is the bone  of  contention between the Andhra Officers and the Telengana Officers.  The Government  of  India decided that the action taken  by  the Government of Andhra Pradesh in regularising with retrospec- tive  effect  and  in relaxation of the  normal  rules,  the temporary appointments made in the erstwhile Andhra State to the posts of Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers  by promotion  from the next lower category of officers has  the effect   of  altering  the  service  conditions  of   Andhra employees to the detriment of the interest of the  employees from  the  Telengana unit.  Taking the and  other  connected factors  into account the Government of India  decided  that action taken by the Andhra Pradesh Government in this regard is  not in order and the representations  submitted  against these  orders should be accepted.  The fourth principle  was that  Class  1 status of the Hyderabad  Assistant  Engineers might be protected as personal to them. 951 Thereafter the Andhra Pradesh Government on 17 March,.  1966 made  a  strong  representation to  the  Central  Government defending  as essential the retrospective regularisation  of the services of the personnel belonging to the former State- of  Andhra.   The State of Andhra Pradesh said that  it  was valid  and proper to take into consideration the  continuous service  of the Andhra employees from a date anterior  to  1 November, 1956. The  Government  of India on 14 June,  1966  reiterated  its earlier decision dated 24 December, 1965 and was of the view that it was not possible to alter the decision already taken against  the  action of  regularisation  with  retrospective effect. The Andhra employees thereupon filed writ petition No.  1363 of 1966 being Civil Appeal No. 2436 of 1969 questioning  the decision of the Government of India dated 14 June, 1966. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition by the  Andhra employees  the Government of India on 22/24  December,  1966 gave a decision to the effect that the continuous service of some of the Andhra officers prior to 1 November, 1956 should be taken into account in determining. the inter-se seniority of the officers.  This decision was in favour of some of the Andhra  officers  and  was in partial  modification  of  the decision of the Government of India dated 24 December,  1965 and reiterated on 14 June, 1966. The  decision  of  the  Government  of  India  dated   22/24 December,  1966 was that the Central  Government  classified Assistant  Engineers  of Andhra State  whose  services  were regularised with retrospective effect into three categories. The  first  category  was  in  respect  of  those  Assistant Engineers  of Andhra State who had satisfactorily  completed their  probation in the lower post and had also put  in  the required  number of years of service in the lower  cadre  on the date on which they were promoted as Assistant  Engineers and whose cases could not be referred to the Public  Service Commission  in time because of administrative delay. in  the second category fell those who had satisfactorily  completed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

their  probation  in the lower post but  not  completed  the requisite  number of years of service in the lower cadre  on the date on which they were promoted as Assistant  Engineers but completed the minimum required service for promotion  on some  dates before 1 November, 1956.  In The third  category were   placed  those  who  had  either  not   satisfactorily completed their probation in the lower cadre and/or had  not completed  the  required number of years of service  in  the lower  cadre  on  the date on which they  were  promoted  as Assistant  Engineers and also had not completed the  minimum required  service  for  promotion  on  any  date  before   1 November, 1956. 952 The  decision  of  the  Government  of  India  dated   22/24 December.  1966  was  that the  Central  Government  had  no objection to retrospective regularisation of the services of the officers falling under the first category.  With  regard to  the  second  category  the  Central  Government  had  no objection  to  the  regularisation of the  services  of  the officers  falling  under that category provided  that  their services  were regularised not from the dates on which  they were promoted as Assistant Engineers’ but from the dates  on which  they  were eligible for promotion  under  the  normal rules.   In  other words, the services of  officers  in  the second  category might be regularised with effect  from  the dates prior to 1 November, 1956 on which they completed  the minimum number of years of service in the lower cadre neces- sary  for promotion as Assistant Engineers.  As regards  the officers  falling  under  the  third  category  the  Central Government   decided  that  their  services  might  not   be regularised  from  dates  prior to 1  November,  1956.   The Central  Government  however said that the officers  in  the third category should be included along with their confreres from the Telengana area of Hyderabad in accordance with  the prescribed  principles and procedure.  Thereafter  those  in the third category should take their turn in accordance with their  seniority in the final Est for promotion to the  post of Assistant Engineers. The  Telengana area officers filed three writ  petitions  in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.  These were numbered 799, 833 land  896  of 1967.  In writ petition No. 799  of  1967  the Telenigana  area officers asked for mandamus  directing  the respondents  lo treat the post of Sub-Engineer of  Telengana area  as  equivalent to the post of  Assistant  Engineer  of Andhra State and integrate’ the services of Sub-Engineers of Telengana  area  and  Assistant Engineers  of  Andhra  State according to the agreed principle# at the Chief  Secretaries in  the months of April and May, 1956.  The  Telengana  area officers  also asked for an order quashing the  decision  of the Government of India dated 22/24 December, 1966 approving the retrospective regularisation and relaxation of rules  in regard to temporary appointments by the Andhra State to  the post of Assistant Engineers. In writ petition No. 833 of 1967 the Telengana area officers asked  for mandamus directing the respondents to  treat  the posts of Executive Engineers of Telengana area as equivalent to  the  posts  of Executive Engineers  (Special  Grade)  of Andhra  State and to treat the post of Divisional  Engineers of  Telengans region as equivalent to the post of  Executive Engineer (Ordinary Grade) of Andhra region and to  integrate their  services  according to the agreed principles  at  the Chief Secretaries Conference in the months of April and May, 1956.  The Telengana officers 953 also  asked  for orders quashing the  decision  dated  22/24

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

December,  1966  of the Government of  India  approving  the  regularisation with retrospective effect and relaxation of the normal rules with regard to temporary appointments  made by  Andhra  State to the post of Executive Engineer  and  by promotion from the next lower category of officers. In writ petition No. 896 of 1967 the Telengana area officers asked  for mandamus directing the respondents to  treat  the posts of Assistant Engineers of Telengana region as a  class superior to the post of Andhra State Engineers and the  post of  Sub-Engineers and Sub-Divisional Officers  of  Hyderabad State  as equivalent to the post of Assistant Engineers  of Andhra State and to integrate the services of the  personnel of  the two regions by adhering to the agreed principles  at the Chief Secretaries Conference in the months of April  and May,  1956.  The Telengana area officers also asked  for  an order  quashing the decision dated 22/24 December,  1966  of the   Government  of  India  approving   the   retrospective regularisation and relaxation of normal rules with regard to temporary  appointments made in Andhra State to the post  of Assistant  Engineers  and by promotion from the  next  lower category of officers. The Andhra officers filed writ petition No. 1439 of 1967 and asked for order quashing the, decision dated 22/24 December, 1966  of the Government of India in so far as it related  to rejection  of  regularisation with retrospective  effect  of officers  of Andhra State falling under categories  (b)  and (c) mentioned in that decision. The  High Court by a common judgment dealt with  writ  peti- tions No. 1363 of 1966 and 1439 of 1967 filed by the  Andhra officers  and  writ petitions No. 799, 833 and 896  of  1967 filed  by the Telengana area officers.  The decision of  the Government  of India dated 22/24 December, 1966 was  quashed on  the ground that it suffered from the vice of  denial  of principles   of  natural  justice  to  the  Telengana   area officers.   The  High  Court said that it was  open  to  the Government  of India to adhere to its previous decisions  of 24 December, 1965 and 14 June, 1966 or to vary the decisions but the Central Government was to give an opportunity to the services  effected to make their representations.  The  High Court further said that if the Central Government wanted  to vary the earlier decisions of 24 December 1965 :and 14 June, 1966  then  all  the services effected should  be  given  an opportunity  to  make their  representations.   The  Central Government was in that case in consultation with the Central Advisory  Board to lay down principles of equation of  posts and  fixation  of  inter-se seniority and  to  finalise  the preparation of common gradation lists. 954 The  High  Court did not however give any  decision  on  the merits  of the question of retrospective  regularisation  of the  services  of the Andhra Engineers or  the  equation  of posts.   The  High Court further said  that  they  refrained particularly  from  examining the individual  cases  of  the Andhra  State officers inasmuch as the same might not  arise if the principles of equation of posts and integration  were settled  after  due consideration of the  representation  on fair and equitable basis. The High Court however expressed the view that the temporary promotions of Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers in the Andhra State prior to 1 November, 1956 were stop-gap  or fortuitous arrangements. In  the result, the High Court dismissed the writ  petitions No.  1363  of  1966 and 1439 of 1967  filed  by  the  Andhra officers.   The High Court allowed writ petitions  No.  799, 833 and 896 of 1967 filed by the Telengana officers.  Civil

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

Appeals  No.  2436  and  2439 of  1969  arise  out  of  writ petitions  No.  1363 of 1966 and 1939 of 1967 filed  by  the Andhra  State officers.  Civil Appeals No. 2437 and 2438  of 1969 arise out of writ petitions No. 799 and 833 of 1967 and the appellants in this Court are the Andhra State officers. It  may be stated hero that Civil Appeals No. 157,  158  and 343 of 1969 are pending in this Court.  These three  appeals arise  out  of writ petitions No. 799, 833 and 896  of  1967 filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court by the Telengana area officers.   The  Telengana area officers filed  those  three appeals  challenging the finding of the High Court that  the decision  of the Central Government dated 24 December,  1965 was not final and that it was open to the Central Government to  consider the temporary (stop-gap or fortuitous)  service of  Engineers from a particular region- for the  purpose  of seniority  after  giving  an  opportunity  to  the  effected persons  and  after consultation with the  Central  Advisory Board. Counsel  on  behalf of the Andhra State  officers  contended that  the  decision of the Central  Government  dated  22/24 December,  1966  was not in violation of the  principles  of natural justice inasmuch as Telengana area officers had made representations in the year 1965.  It was also said that the decision  of  the Central Government dated  22/24  December, 1966   was   nothing  more  than  accepting  in   part   the recommendations  of the Central Advisory Committee given  in the   month   of   November,   1965.    According   to   the appellants    the   Telengana  area  officers   made   their representations  to the Central Advisory Committee and  also to  the Central Government.  The High Court  correctly  held that  the  order  of  the  Central  Government  dated  22/24 December. 1966 955 was  made  without giving the Telengana  area  officers  any opportunity  of making representation against the course  of action   which  the  Central  Government  adopted  by   that decision. The  second contention on behalf of the  appellants,  namely the Andhra State officers was that the High Court was  wrong in holding that the temporary service of the Andhra officers was  a stop-gap or fortuitous arrangement.  It was  said  on behalf  of the Andhra officers that there was no bar in  the States Reorganisation Act to regularising the services which were  irregular  in  the  sense  that  the  Public   Service Commission was not consulted at the time of- appointment but such consultation was done later.  It was also said that the appointments  in the Andhra State were initially  irregular, but  they were not invalid appointments.  It  was  contended that irregular service, if any, must be counted for for  the purpose   of  integration  of  services  and   fixation   of seniority.  The retrospective regularisation and  relaxation of  rules was defended by counsel for the appellants  to  be within  the power of the Andhra Pradesh State to  deal  with its own old personnel on the ground that such power was  not only not taken away by the States Reorganisation Act but was preserved. The  rival  contentions  on behalf  of  the  Telengana  area officers  were  that the Central  Government  under  section 115(5) of the Act was not competent lo confer any new rights but  only  to determine the rights existing as on  the  mid- night  of 31 October 1956.  It was specially  emphasised  on behalf of the respondents, the Telengana area officers, that the  Andhra Pradesh State had no jurisdiction to  regularise the services of the Andhra State officers with retrospective effect from a date anterior to 1 November 1956.  The  reason

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

advanced against such retrospective regularisation was  that it  would confer the right of seniority which would  pertain only to regular service and thereby enable the, Andhra State officers  to  occupy a place in  the  Inter-State  seniority which  they  could  not have  but  for  the  regularisation. lrregular  appointment was also said to confer no  right  to the post.  The reason was that the appointment was temporary and  therefore it conferred no right.  Counsel on behalf  of the  Telengana area officers contended that  the  principles arrived  at the Chief Secretaries Conference indicated  that only regular service, whether temporary or permanent,  could be counted to determine the length of continuous service. It is not necessary to express any opinion in these  appeals as  to  whether the services of Andhra State  officers  were stop-gap  or  fortuitous  arrangements.   Under  the  States Reorganisation  Act  power  is  conferred  on  the   Central Government to bring about the integration of services in the State of Andhra Pradesh by ensuring 956 fair and equitable treatment to all persons effected by  the provisions  of  section 115 of the Act.  The  Government  of Andhra  Pradesh is under a duty to bring all relevant  facts to  the notice of the Central Government.  The Andhra  State officers  are to present their viewpoint in order to  ensure that  the final decision of the Central Government  is  fair and  equitable  to  all employees of  the  new  State.   The Telengana   area   officers  are  also  entitled   to   make representations  in  order  to  ensure  integration  of  the services  and  fair and equitable treatment to  all  persons effected by the provisions of the section. Under  the States Reorganisation Act the Central  Government is entrusted with the power of the division and  integration of  the  services  and the ensuring of  fair  and  equitable treatment  to  all  persons effected by  the  provisions  of section  115 of the Act in regard to allotment  of  officers from an existing State to a successor State.  With regard to powers of the State section 115(7) of the Act provides  that after  the  appointed day (1 November, 1956)  nothing  shall effect the operation of the provisions of Chapter 1 of  Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to the determination  of the  conditions of service of persons serving in  connection with  the  affairs  of the Union or  any  State.   There  is however an important proviso to sub-section (7).  It is that the conditions of service applicable immediately before  the appointed day to the case of any person referred to in  sub- section  (1) of sub-section (2) shall not be varied  to  his disadvantage  except  with  the  previous  approval  of  the Central Government. The  power  of the Central Government  with  regard  to division   and   integration   of  service   came   up   for consideration before this Court in Union of India & Anr.  v. P.  K.  Roy & Ors.(1). It was said there that  the  work  of integration  requires  the formulation  of  principles,  the actual preparation of preliminary gradationlist         in accordance   with   the  principles,   the   invitation   of representations   by  the  persons  affected  thereby,   the consideration of representations and the publication of  the final  gradation  list incorporating the decision  upon  the representations.   The   Act  also  empowers   the   Central Government to establish Advisory Committees for the  purpose of assisting the Central Government. In P. K. Roy’s(1)  case (supra)  the ruling of this Court was that  the  preliminary work of preparation of the gradation list on the  principles decided upon by the Central Government could be left to  the State Government concerned and there would be no mischief of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

delegation of power by that course  of action. The power  of the Central Government under section 115 of the Act is  that the  decision  has  to be of  the  Central  Government.  The Central Government can therefore take the aid (1)  [1968] 2 S.C.R. 186, 957 and  assistance  of the State Government in  the  matter  of effecting  the  integration of the services  but  the  final integration  is  to  be, done, only with  the  sanction  and approval of the Central Government.  In the present appeals, there  is  no question of delegation.   The  integration  of services  is to be done by the Central Government.   In  the task of integration of services the Central Government  will consider  the  rival  contentions  of  Andhra  officers  and Telengana  area officers as to whether the services  of  the Andhra officers were stop-gap or fortuitous arrangements. The  power of the State Government to change  conditions  of service  within the meaning of section 11 5 (7) of  the  Act was considered by this Court in N. Raghavendra Rao v. Deputy Commissioner,  SouthKanara, Mangalore.(1) This  Court  said, "The broad purpose underlying the proviso to section  115(7) of  the  Act was to ensure that the  conditions  of  service should not be changed except with the prior approval of  the Central  Government." Under Article 309 of the  Constitution the  power  of the State is pre-served to make  rules.   The proviso to section 115(7) of the Act imposes a limitation on the  State not to vary the conditions of service  applicable immediately  before 1 November, 1956 to the disadvantage  of persons mentioned in sub-sections (1) or (2) of section  115 of  the Act.  In Raghavendra Rao’s case (supra) the  Central Government  on  11 May, 1957 addressed a memorandum  to  all State  Governments.  The Central Government there said  that some conditions of service should be protected.  The matters for  protection mentioned were substantive pay of  permanent employees,  certain type of special pay and leave  rules  in certain  cases.  With regard to departmental promotion,  the Central Government memorandum said that the question whether any  protection  should  be given in respect  of  rules  and conditions  applicable  to Government servants  affected  by reorganisation immediately before the date of reorganisation in the matter of travelling allowance, discipline,  control, classification, appeal, conduct, probation and  departmental promotion  was  also  considered.   The  Central  Government memorandum  agreed with the State view that it would not  be appropriate to provide for protection in the matter of those conditions.  This memorandum was construed by this Court  to amount to an approval by the Central Government of change of service rules by the State.  It, therefore, follows that  if there is any question of change of conditions of service  it will  have  to be found out whether in the  first  place  it amounts  to change in the conditions of service and, if  so, secondly to find out whether there was prior approval of the Central Government.  One of the contentions advanced by  the Telengana  officers  in  the present appeals  was  that  the retrospective (1)  [1964] 7 S.C.R. 549. 958 regularisation  and  relaxation  of rules by  the  State  of Andhra Pradesh subsequent to the appointed day would  amount to  change  in conditions of service and conferment  of  new advantages  on  Andhra  officers to  the  detriment  to  the Telengana  officers.  It will be within the province of  the decision of the Central Government under section 115 of  the Act  in regard to integration of services and ensuring  fair and   equitable  treatment  to  all  persons   whether   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

retrospective  regularisation and relaxation of  rules  will amount  to any change in the conditions of service  or  will result  in denial of fair and equitable treatment to any  of the persons affected thereby. The  Central Government under the Act is required to  affect The  integration  of services of officers in  the  Telengana area  and  officers  of  the  Andhra  State.   The   Central Government will have to decide whether the regularisation of promotions  of Andhra Engineers and relaxation of rules  and retrospective  regularisation was permissible.  The  Central Government  will determine finally the principles  governing the  equation  of  posts  and  the  preparation  of  .common gradation lists. In  the  result, the order of the High  Court  quashing  the decision  of  the Central Government dated  22/24  December, 1966  is upheld.  The observations of the High Court on  the temporary  service of the Andhra officers to be stop-gap  or fortuitous   arrangements  are  set  aside.    The   Central Government  will  determine  the  principles  governing  the equation of posts.  The Central Government will now  proceed with the integration of services of Telengana area  officers and  Andhra  State  officers and  determine  the  principles governing the equation of posts and prepare gradation  lists after  giving opportunities to the persons affected to  make their representations. In  view  of the divided success of both the  parties,  they will  bear  their costs both in the High Court and  in  this Court. G.C.                        Appeal partly, allowed. 959