http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: R.M. RAMUAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/12/1988

BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) NATRAJAN, S. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR  357            1988 SCR  Supl. (3)1009  1989 SCC  (1) 285        JT 1988 (4)   562  1988 SCALE  (2)1481

ACT:     Seniority   List--Challenge   to   liability    of--When permissible. %     States Reorganisation Act, 1955. Section  82--Conditions of  service--Variation  of--Previous  approval  of  Central. Government--When   necessary--Integration  of  services   of persons  from  transferred territory of Punjab  to  Himachal Pradesh--Ministry  of Home Affairs letter dated  14.2.1967-- Effect of.

HEADNOTE:     Under  the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, November  1, 1966  was fixed as the appointed day on and from which  date certain territories of the State of Punjab were  transferred to  the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, alongwith  some officers  and staff. Accordingly, respondents Nos. 4  and  5 who  were holding the posts of Tourist Officers in the  Pay- scale of Rs.250-350 in the State of Punjab were allocated to Himachal Pradesh as Tourist Officers in the same scale.  The appellant  who  was  a confirmed Reception  Officer  in  the Department of Public Relations & Tourism, Himachal  Pradesh, had  been temporarily promoted on May 13, 1966  as  District Public  Relations  Officer in the pay-scale  of  Rs.250-500, against an ex-cadre post.     In   the  provisional  seniority  list  and  the   final seniority list published in 1971, the appellant was shown as Reception Officer while respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were  shown senior to him as Tourist Officers.     The  appellant made a representation to  the  Government regarding  his  promotion and seniority. As  a  result,  the appellant was given proforma promotion as Assistant  Manager with retrospective effect from June 4, 1966.     In  the seniority list prepared by the Himachal  Pradesh Tourism  Development  Corporation on December 31,  l977  the name of the appellant was placed at the top of the names  of other the  officers including those of respondents Nos. l  & 5.     However, on the representation of respondent Nos. 4 & 5, the  Tourism Development Corporation issued an  order  dated                                                 PG NO 1009

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

                                                PG NO 1010 April 28, 1982 that the inter se seniority of the  appellant and   respondents  nos. 4 & 5 was to be  determined  on  the basis  of their substantive ranks on November l,  1966,  and that the said respondents being in higher scale on that date would rank senior to the appellant, as the appellant was not entitled  to  any advantage in seniority on account  of  his proforma promotion.     The  appellant  moved a writ petition  before  the  High Court against the order dated April 28, 1982. The High Court dismissed  the writ petition principally on the ground  that the  seniority list once finalised after  integration  could not be reopened.     Allowing the appeal, it was,     HELD:  (l) Both the provisional and the final  seniority lists were prepared without complying with the directions of the   Central Government, as contained in the letter of  the Joint Secretary to the Government of lndia, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated February 14, 1967. [1017E-F]     (2) According to the instructions issued by the  Central Government   for   the   integration   of   services,    and determination  of relative seniority, one of the  two  steps which had to be taken was determination of equivalent posts, the  most important factor for such determination being  the salary of the post. [1014F-G]     (3)  There  was no attempt to determine  the  equivalent posts,  that  is  to  say, no  endeavour  was  made  by  the Government  to equate one post with another for the  purpose of  integration  and determination  of  relative  seniority. Instead,  the  posts  as  they  were,  were  placed  in  the seniority list. [l017F]     (4)  l,under the directions of the  Central  Government, the post of Tourists Officer could not be equated with  that of  the District Public Relations Officer because the  scale of  pay  of  the former is less than  that  of  the  latter. [1O15E]     (5) One of the factors that should have been taken  into consideration  for the purpose of determination of  relative seniority  as mentioned in the letter of the  Government  of lndia, is length of continuous service whether temporary  or permanent  in  the equivalent post,  excluding  periods  for which  an  appointment  is  held  in  a  purely  stopgap  or fortuitous arrangement. [1017G-H]                                                  PG NO  1011     (6) The Government utterly ignored the direction of  the Central  Government and the appellant’s substantive rank  as the Reception Officer as on November 1, 1966 was erroneously taken  into consideration for the purpose of  preparing  the inter  se  seniority.  This  omission  vitiates  the   final seniority  list, apart from the omission to equate one  post with another for the purpose of integration. [1018B-C]     (7) Normally, when a seniority list has been made final, it  should  not  be allowed to be  challenged.  But  when  a seniority list is prepared ignoring all just principles  and also  the  rules framed or directions given  by  appropriate authority, seriously affecting any officer. it is liable  to be examined and set aside by the Court. [1018G-H]     (8)  It  is only on April 28, 1982 when  the  Government accepted  the representation of respondents nos. 4 &  5  and directed  that the inter se seniority of the  appellant  and the  said respondents was to be determined on the  basis  of their  substantive  ranks as on November l.  1966  that  the cause of action really arose to the appellant for moving the writ petition. There has thus been no unreasonable delay  on the  part of the appellant to challenge the final  seniority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

list.  It is also not correct to say that no  representation was made by the appellant earlier. [1019E-F]     (9)  What  has been done in the instant case is  that  a glarming injustice was done to the appellant by taking  into account  his  substantive rank as the Reception  Officer  on November 1. 1966, while as a matter of fact. on that date he was  holding  the  position  of  District   Public-Relations Officers.  That was done in violation of the  directions  of the  Central  Government, and  subsequently  the  Government rectified the mistake by granting proforma promotion to  the appellant  with  effect from .June 4, 1966 to  the  post  of Assistant Manager equivalent to  the post of District Public Relations Officer. There is therefore no question of  taking the   previous  approval  of  the  central   Government   as contamplated by Section 82(6) of the Act. [1020F-G; 1022l]     State of Himachal pradesh v. Union of lndia [l974] 3 SCR 907; N. Subba Rao v. Union of India., [1973] l SCR 94.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLA-TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6144  of 1983.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  10.8.1982  of  the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWP No. 109 of 1982.                                                   PG NO 1012         P.P. Rao and Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant.     Shankar Ghosh, K.G. Bhagat, P.P. Juneja, Girish Chandra, Ms. A. Subhashini and N.h. Sharma for the Respondents.     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Dutt, J. This appeal by appeal leave is directed against the  judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court  dismissing the   writ  petition  of  the  appellant   challenging   the Government  order dated April 2&,1982 as a result  of  which the appellant was placed below the respondents Nos. 4 and  5 in the seniority list.     The appellant was appointed as Reception Officer in  the Department of Public Relations & Tourism, Himachal  Pradesh, on  February 26, 1962 and was confirmed in that post on  May 18,  1966.  He  was  temporarily promoted  to  the  post  of District  Public  Relations  Officer  in  the  pay-scale  of Rs.250-500  on  May  18, 1966. On June 3, 1966,  a  post  of Assistant Manager, Tourism, was created in the pay-scale  of Rs.250-500. One S.P. Singh, who was junior to the  appellant was  appointed  to that post inasmuch as the  appellant  was already  holding  the  post  of  District  Public  Relations Officer in the same scale of pay. It may be stated here that both  the  posts of District Public  Relations  Officer  and Assistant Manager were ex cadre posts.     On  July 26, 1966 the Department of Public  Relations  & Tourism was bifurcated and a separate Department of  Tourism was created. It is the case of the appellant that he made  a representation  that he might be transferred to  his  parent Department, that is, the Department of Tourism.     While  the representation of the appellant  was  pending consideration,   the   Punjab  Reorganisation   Act,   1966, hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Act,  was  enacted.  The appointed  day under the Act was fixed a November  l,  1966. Under  section 5 of the Act, on and from the  appointed  day certain territories of the State of Punjab were added to the Union  Territory of Himachal Pradesh. Section 33 of the  Act provides  that  every  person  who  immediately  before  the appointed  day is holding or discharging duties of any  post or  office  in connection with the affairs of  the  existing State  of Punjab in any area which on that day falls  within

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

any of the successor States shall continue to hold the  same post of office in that successor State and shall be  deemed, on  and  from that day, to have been duly appointed  to  the post  or  office by the Government of or  other  appropriate                                                  PG NO 1013 authority  in, that successor State. A Under the proviso  to section  33  nothing  in that section  shall  be  deemed  to prevent a competent authority on or after the appointed  day from passing in relation to such person any order  affecting his continuance in such Post or office.     The respondents Nos. 4 and 5, who were holding the posts of  Tourists Officers in the pay-scale of Rs.250-350 in  the State  of Punjab, were allocated to the Union  Territory  of Himachal  Pradesh  as Tourist Officers in the  pay-scale  of Rs.250-350.  Although there were no post of Tourist  Officer in  the  Union  Territory of Himachal Pradesh,  in  view  of section  33  of  the  Act, the  respondents  Nos.  4  and  5 continued to hold the posts of Tourists Officers.     The Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in his D.O. letter dated February 14,  1967 issued  certain instructions for the purpose of  integration of the services of persons from the transferred territory of Punjab  into those of the Himachal Pradesh. Paragraph  2  of the said letter is in following terms:     2. Action for the integration of the services would have to be initiated soon after the finalisation of  allocations. This would involve two steps:     (i) Determination of equivalent posts, and     (ii)  Determination  of relative  seniority  of  persons holding   equivalent   posts  but   drawn   from   different integration units.     For  determining  the equation of  posts  the  following factors would have to be taken into consideration:     (a) The nature and duties of a post;     (b)  The  responsibilities and powers exercised  by  the officer  holding  the posts; the extent of  territorial;  or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;     (c)  The minimum qualifications, if  any,prescribed  for recruitment to the posts; and the     (d) the salary of the post.                                                  PG NO 1014     The  following  factors  would have  to  be  taken  into account for the determination of relative seniority:     (x)  Length of continuous service, whether temporary  or permanent,  in  the  equivalent post,  this  should  exclude periods for which an appointment is held in a purely stopgap or fortuitous attangement; and     (y)  age  of the person; other facts  being  equal,  for instance, seniority may be determined on the basis of age.     While determining relative seniority as mentioned above, it was also be borne in mind that the inter se seniority  of officers drawn from the same integrating unit should as  far as possible be maintained."     Thereafter,  in paragraph 3 it is inter alia  stated  as follows:     "3...........................In  the meanwhile. I  would request you to initiate without avoidable delay the work  of establishing provisional equations between posts which  have come  from  the Punjab to Himachal Pradesh and  those  which were  in existence in Himachal Pradesh on the 31st  October, 1966 and to prepare provisional seniority list as on the 1st November,  1966  based on those  equations  for  each  cadre (leaving  out  all localised cadre or cadres  in  which  the problem  of  integrating officers from the Punjab  with  the officers of the Himachal Pradesh does not arise )."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

   One  of  the  two steps which was to be  taken  for  the purpose  of  integration  was  determination  of  equivalent posts.  For determination the equivalent posts, the  factors which  would  have to be taken in  consideration  were  also suggested  in the said letter. One of the factors, which  is by  far the most important one, was as contained  in  clause (d)  of paragraph 2, namely, the salary of the post.  It  is apparent   from  the  instructions  given  by  the   Central Government.  as  contained in the said Letter of  the  Joint Secretary,  that  for the purpose of integration  the  first thing  which should be done was determination of  equivalent post  and  after such determination,  the  determination  of relative seniority persons holding equivalent posts would be made.     It is surprising that although the instructions as given by  the Central Government were very clear and  specific  in                                                  PG NO 1015 the  matter  of integration of services, the  Government  of Himachal  Pradesh  instead of following the  two  steps,  as mentioned  in  the  said  letter  of  the  Joint  Secretary, prepared  a  provisional  seniority  list  of  the   Tourism Department  without first determining the equivalent  posts. There   can  be  no  doubt  that  integration  of   services postulates   equation  of  posts.  Without  such   equation, preparation  of inner se seniority lists  between  different groups  of  officers  holding  different  posts  cannot   be conceived. The Himachal Pradesh Government. however, appears to   have  ignored  the  specific,  clear  and   categorical directions  of  the  Central  Government  to  first  of  all determine  the  equivalent posts and  adopted  an  arbitrary procedure  in preparing the provisional inter  se  seniority list  without  such equation of posts.  In  the  provisional seniority list, the said S.P. Singh who was holding the post of  Assistant  Manager with effect from June 4,  1966  which post,  as stated already, is an ex cadre post like the  post of District Public Relations Officer held by the  appellant, was  placed  at  the  top of  seniority  list  as  Assistant Manager. After him were placed the names of respondents Nos. 4  and 5 as Tourist Officers. The name of the  appellant  as placed  below  the names of the respondents Nos 4 and  5  as Reception  Officer. Admittedly. the appellant was senior  to the said S.P. Singh. They were, however holding posts having the  same scale of pay. The Tourist Officers who joined  the Tourism  department  of the Government of  Himachal  Pradesh from  Punjab  as  a  result  of  the  transfer  of   certain territories of Punjab to Himachal Pradesh, were placed above the appellant although, admittedly, their scales of pay were less than that of the appellant. Under the directions of the Central  Government, the post of Tourists Officer could  not be  equated  with  that of  the  District  Public  Relations Officer because the scale of pay of the former is less  than that  of the latter. Moreover, it is not understandable  why the  appellant’s  name  was  metioned   in  the  provisional seniority.   list as the Reception Officer, when he  was  on the appointed day, that is, on November 1, 1966, holding the post of district Public Relation Officer.     Be  that  as it may. the final seniority list  that  was published   undercover  of  the  office   Memorandum   dated September  13, t971 appears to be anomalous. In  the  final, seniority list, the names of the Tourists Officers including those of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were placed above  the Reception  Officers and the name of the appellant was  under the head ’Reception Officer’ below the names of the Tourists Officers including those of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5. It was already noted that the appellant was holding the post of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

District  Public Relations Officer, an ex cadre post in  the Public Relations Department.                                                  PG NO 1016     It appears that the appellant had made a  representation to  the  Government regarding his  promotion  and  seniority after  the  publication of the final  seniority  list.  That representation   bore  result,  for  it  appears  from   the Memorandum  dated  August  7, 1973 of  the  Commissioner  of Transport  & Tourism, Himachal Pradesh, that the  Government after  careful  consideration of the representation  of  the appellant  dated  June  30, 1973  agreed  to  give  proforma promotion  to him as Assistant Manager in the  pay-scale  of Rs.225-300,  with retrospective effect in consultation  with the  Public Service Commission. The appellant was  requested to  intimate as to whether he would opt to revert  from  the Public  Relations  Department  to  serve  as  the  Assistant Manager or would like to continue with the Public  Relations Department.  The  commissioner of Transport &  Tourism  also sent  a  telegram  dated  march 3,  1974  to  the  appellant informing him of his proforma promotion as Assistant Manager in the Department of Tourism. The telegram was followed by a memorandum wherein it was stated that the appellant, who was officiating  an ex cadre post of District  Public  Relations Officer  in  the  pay-scale  of  Rs.350-500  in  the  Public Relations  Department,  was  given  proforma  promotion   as Assistant  Manager in the Department of Tourism in the  pay- scale  of  Rs.225-500 (with initial start  of  Rs.300)  with effect from June 4, 1966. However, it was stated that  since the  post  of  Assistant Manager was an  isolated  one,  the question of fixing his seniority did not arise.     After  the  appellant had exercised his option  for  the Tourism  Department, the Deputy Secretary (Tourism)  to  the Government of Himachal Pradesh by his letter dated  February 6,  1975  requested the Managing Director  of  the  Himachal Pradesh  Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.,  Simla,  that the appellant might be treated like other p employees of the erstwhile Tourism Department, he having exercised his option validly  and given a comparable post in the Corporation.  In that  letter, it was also stated that the appellant had  all along  been  representing and requesting for  the  grant  of extension  in time to exercise his option on  valid  grounds and  as advised by the Law Department, the option  exercised by the appellant should be deemed to have been given by  him for   proforma   promotion   as   Assistant   Manager   with retrospective effect from June 4, 1966.     A  seniority list was prepared by the  Himachal  Pradesh Tourism Department Corporation on December 31, l977. In  the said seniority list the name of the appellant was placed  at the  top of the names of other officers including  those  of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5.                                                  PG NO 1017     While  the  appellant was holding the  position  of  the District  Public  Relations  Officer in  the  said  Himachal Pradesh  Tourism  Development Corporation, his  name  having been placed above the names of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5, the  Department  of Tourism issued an order dated  April  28 1982  on the representation of the respondents Nos. 4 and  5 directing  that the inter se seniority of the appellant  and the  respondents  Nos. 4 and 5 was to be determined  on  the basis  of  their  substantive ranks  on  November  l,  1966. Further, it was directed that the proforma promotion granted to  the appellant with retrospective effect would  not  also entitle  him  to any advantage in seniority, as he  was  not eligible  to be appointed as Assistant Manager according  to the recruitment and promotional rules of the Department. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

inter  se  seniority  of the respondents Nos. 4  and  5  was directed  to  be  fixed on the basis  of  their  substantive appointments  as  on  November 1, l966  and  that  the  said respondents  being in higher scale on that case, would  rank senior to the appellant.     Being  aggrieved by the said impugned  Government  order dated  April  28, 1982 the appellant moved a  writ  petition before  the  Himachal Pradesh High Court.  The  High  Court, however,  took  the  view  that  the  seniority  list   once finalised alter integrations persons working in the  Tourism Department  and  those  coming  from  Punjab  could  not  be reopened to the disadvantage of other persons. In that  view of the matter the High Court, ,as stated already,  dismissed the write  petition. Hence this appeal by special leave.     It  has been ,already noticed that both the  provisional and   the  final  seniority  lists  were  prepared   without complying  with the direction of the central  Government  as contained  in  the  letter of the  Joint  secretary  to  the Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Home  affairs,   dated February  14. 1967. There was no attempt to   determine  the equivalent  posts, that is to say, no endeavour was made  by the  Government  to  equate one post with  another  for  the purpose   of  integration  and  determination  of   relative seniority instead, the post as they were, were placed in the seniority  list.  The Government also did not   follow   the directions  of  the Central Government  in  determining  the relative seniority. One of the factors that should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of relative seniority , as mentioned in the said letter of  the joint  Secretary,  is length of continuous  service  whether temporary  or  permanent in the equivalent  post,  excluding periods  for which an appointment is held in a  purely  stop gap   or   fortuitous  arrangement.   The   appellant   was, admittedly,promoted to the post of District Public Relations Officer  in the pay scale of Rs. 250-500 on May 18,1966.  It                                                  PG NO 1018 is  not  the  case of any party that the  promotion  of  the appellant  was  by  way  of  any  stop  gap  or   fortuitous arrangement. The final seniority list as on November 1, 1966 was  prepared  on September 13, 1971. On November  1,  1966, admittedly,  the appellant was holding the ex-cadre post  of the District Public Relations Officer. According to the said directions  of  the  Central Government,  in  preparing  the relative  seniority  the position of the  appellant  as  the District  Public  Relations Officer should have  been  taken into consideration. The Department utterly ignored the  said direction  of  the Central Government  and  the  appellant’s substantive rank as the Reception Officer as on November  1, 1966  was  erroneously  taken  into  consideration  for  the purpose of preparing the inter se seniority, even though the appellant   was  on  November  1,  1966  not   holding   the substantive  rank of Reception Officer, but the post of  the District  Public Relations Officer in a temporary  capacity. This  omission  on  the part of the  Department  and/or  the Himachal  Pradesh  Government vitiates the  final  seniority list,  apart  from  the omission to  equate  one  post  with another for the purpose of integration. The final  seniority list. as has  been already observed, is an anomalous one and does not depict the relative seniority among officers  after integration in accordance with the directions of the Central Government.     Mr.  Shankar Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on  behalf of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 (respondent No. 5 has  since died).  submits  that  after the final  seniority  list  was approved by the Central Government, it had become final  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

it cannot he challenged in 1982 after 11 years. Further.  it is submitted by him that the final seniority list has  never been challenged by the appellant and, accordingly. he cannot be allowed to challenge the same by filing a writ  petition. It  is  true that the final seniority list was sent  to  the Central  Government  and  presumably it  was  approved,  but because a seniority list has been approved, but the  Central Government,  it  cannot be laid down as a rule of  law  that even  though it has been illegally prepared in violation  of the  directions  of  the Central Government  itself  to  the prejudice of the officer or officers concerned, it cannot be challenged.  Normally, when a seniority list has  been  made final, it should not be allowed to be challenged. But when a seniority list is prepared ignoring all just principles  and also  the  rules framed or directions given  by  appropriate authority,  seriously  affecting any officer, it  is  always liable  to be examined and set aside by the Court.  We  are, therefore,  unable to accept the contention of  the  learned Counsel  for  the respondent No. 4 that the  seniority  list having  been  made final after the approval of  the  Central Government cannot be challenged by the appellant.                                                  PG NO 1019     So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for  the respondent  No. 4 regarding the challenge of  the  seniority list after 11 years is concerned, it may be pointed out that it  is  not  correct  that no  challenge  was  made  by  the appellant  to the seniority list. Indeed, in the  Memorandum of  the  Commissioner, Department of  Transport  &  Tourism, Himachal  Pradesh,  dated August 7, 1973  addressed  to  the appellant  informing  him  of the decision  of  the  Central Government  to give to the appellant proforma  promotion  as Assistant   Manager   in  the  scale  of   Rs.225-500   with retrospective    effect   referred   to   the    appellant’s representation   dated  June  30,  1973.  Apart  from   this representation, the appellant had also made another  earlier representation  on June 3, 1968 which has been  admitted  by the  Government  of Himachal Pradesh in paragraph 7  of  the counter-affidavit  dated July 3, 1982 affirmed on behalf  of the  respondents  Nos.  I  and 2  by  the  Deputy  Secretary (Tourism)  to  the Government of Himachal  Pradesh.  In  the circumstances,   it   is  not  correct  to   say   that   no representation was made by the appellant.     It is true that the seniority list was prepared in 1971, but  no  prejudice  was  caused  to  the  appellant  by  the seniority  list, as he was holding the position of  District Public   Relations  Officer  all  through.   Moreover,   the appellant was given proforma promotion by the Government  on or  about August 7, 1973. It is only by the  impugned  order dated  April  28,  1982 that  the  Government  accepted  the representation of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and  directed that the inter se seniority of the appellant and of the said respondents  was  to  be determined on the  basis  of  their substantive  ranks on November l. 1966 and further  directed that  the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 would tank senior to  the appellant. The cause of action really arose to the appellant for moving the writ petition after he was communicated  with the  impugned  order dated April 28, 1982. In  our  opinion, therefore, there has been no unreasonable delay on the  part of  the  appellant  to challenge  the  impugned  order  and, consequently, the final seniority list.     At  this stage, it may be stated that  some  contentions have  been made on behalf of both the parties regarding  the creation  of  the post of Assistant Manager in  the  Tourism Department  under  the  rules framed  on  December  7,  1967 relating  to recruitment, promotion and  service  conditions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

applicable  to  non-gazetted officers of the  Department  of Tourism under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It may also be noticed that the post of  Assistant manager created under the rules was subsequently  abolished. In  our  opinion,  nothing  turns out  on  the  creation  or abolition of the post of Assistant Manager.                                                  PG NO 1020     The  next contention of Mr. Ghosh is that  no  promotion with  retrospective effect can be given to the  disadvantage of  others. In support of this contention,  learned  Counsel has  placed much reliance upon a decision of this  Court  in State  of Himachal Pradesh v. Union of India, [1974]  3  SCR 907.  In that case, a post was upgraded  with  retrospective effect and it was held that the State Government of Himachal Pradesh could not upgrade the post with retrospective effect without the sanction of the Central Government under section 82(6) of the Act. In the instant case, we are not  concerned with the question of upgradation of posts, but with proforma promotion given to the  appellant with retrospective effect, from  November 1, 1966. The said decision, in  our  opinion, has no application to the facts of the instant case.     Next Mr. Ghosh has placed reliance upon another decision of  this Court in N. Subba Rao v. Union of India,  [1973]  I SCR  945.  That is a case under the  .States  Reorganisation Act,1955. It has been held 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 that was advanced before this  Court in  the said case was that the retrospective  regularisation and  relaxation  of  rules by the State  of  Andhra  Pradesh subsequent  to  the  appointed  would amount  to  change  in conditions  of service and conferment of new  advantages  on Andhra  Pradesh Officers to the detriment of  the  Telengana Officer.  In  the  instant case, however,  the  question  of regularisation  and relaxation of rules do not  arise.  What has  been  done  in  the present  case  is  that  a  glaring injustice  was done to the appellant by taking into  account his substantive rank as the reception Officer on November  1 1966 while, as a matter of tact, on that date he was holding the position of District Public Relations Officer. that  was done   in  violation  of  the  directions  of  the   Central Government,  and subsequently the Government  rectified  the mistake the by granting proforma promotion to  the appellant with  effect  from  June 4, 1966 to the  post  of  Assistant Manager equivalent to the post of District Public  Relations Officer.  It is, however, submitted by Mr. Ghosh that as the previous  approval of the Central Government was not  ,taken as required to be taken under the provision to section 82(6) of  the  Act,  the  Government order  as  contained  in  the Memorandum dated August 7, 1983 read with that contained  in the  Memorandum  dated  March  3,  1974,  granting  proforma                                                   PG NO 1021 promotion to the appellant as Assistant Manager in the scale of  Rs.225-500 with retrospective effect from June  4,  1966 was  illegal. In order to consider this contention,  we  may refer to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (6)  of section 82 of the Act which provide as follows:     "82. Provisions relating to other Services.     (1)  Every person who immediately before  the  appointed day  is  serving  in  connection with  the  affairs  of  the existing  State  of  Punjab shall, on  and  from  that  day, provisionally  continue  to  serve in  connection  with  the affairs  of  the  State  of Punjab unless he is required, by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

general or special order of the Central Government, to serve provisionally  in connection with the affairs of  any  other successor State.     (2)  As  soon  as may be after the  appointed  day,  the Central  Government  shall,  by general  or  special  order, determine  the successor State to which every person  refer- red  to  in sub-section (1) shall be  finally  allotted  for service  and the date with effect from which such  allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect.     (3)       to       (5)..................................     (6) Nothing in this section shall he deemed to affect on or after the appointed day the  operation of the  provisions of Chapter 1 of Part KIV of the constitution in relation  to the  determination of the conditions of service  of  persons serving in connection with the  affairs of the Union of  any State:     Provided  that  the  condition   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 he varied to his      disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government.     Under the proviso to sub-section (6), the conditions  of service  applicable immediately before the appointed day  to the  case of any persons referred to in sub-section  (1)  or sub-section  (2)  shall not be varied  to  his  disadvantage                                                   PG NO 1022 except with the previous approval of the Central Government. Under  sub-section  (1)  and sub-section  (2),  the  persons referred  to are those who immediately before the  appointed day were serving in connection with the affairs of the  then State of Punjab. In other words, the respondents Nos. 4  and 6  come within the purview of sub-sections ( 1) and (2).  In view  of  proviso  to sub-section (6)  of  section  32,  the conditions  of  service applicable  immediately  before  the appointed  day to the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 could not  be varied  to  their  disadvantage  except  with  the  previous approval of the Central Government. The said order, granting proforma promotion to the appellant to the post of Assistant Manager with effect from June 4, 1966, does not at all  vary the  conditions of service of the respondents Nos. 4  and  5 applicable  to  them immediately before the  appointed  day. There  is,  therefore, no question of  taking  the  previous approval  of  the  Central  Government  as  contemplated  by section 82(6) of the Act. Indeed, the said order was  passed in rectification of the mistake committed by the  Department of  Tourism  and/or  the  State  Government  and  for  doing substantial justice to the appellant.     We have already expressed our views as to the nature  of the  seniority list and the manner in which it was  prepared in  violation of the directions of the  Central  Government. The  High  Court has not considered the  directions  of  the Central  Government as contained in the said letter  of  the Joint  Secretary  dated  February l4,  1967  and  the  utter violation  of  the same by the Department and/or  the  State Government  in  preparing  the  final  selection  list,   as indicated  above.   The High court, as already  stated,  has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant principally  on the  ground  that the seniority list  once  finalised  after integrating  the persons working in the  Tourism  Department and  those  coming  from Punjab cannot be  reopened  to  the disadvantage  of the other persons without considering  that the final seniority list was made without complying with the directions of the Central Government to the prejudice of the appellant.  In the circumstances, the judgment of  the  High Court cannot be sustained.

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

   For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.  There will,  however, be no order as to costs. The impugned  order dated April 28, 1982 and the judgment of the High Court  are set  aside. The name of the appellant shall be placed  above that of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 (since deceased) in the final seniority list.     The application of the interveners are also disposed  of accordingly.