http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/04/1999

BENCH: S.Rajendra Babu, S.N.Phukan

JUDGMENT:

RAJENDRA BABU. J.

       The respondents herein were in the judicial  service of the  State  of  A.P.    They were originally appointed as Munsif Magistrates in the erstwhile State of  Hyderabad  and after  the  formation  of  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  their services were intergrade with those  of  their  counterparts from different  parts forming the State of A.P.  As provided in the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’],  the  inter-state  seniority  amongst  the judicial  officers  of different regions was referred to the Central Govt.  and the new State of A.P.  prepared a  common seniority list  as  directed  by  the Central Govt.  Certain litigations arose as to the norms to be adopted  for  fixing the  seniority  and  ultimately the High Court the concerned officers did not actually work in the higher post  and  they had no right to claim monetary benefits.

       Rules  26(aa)  of  the  Fundamental  Rules  and Rule 40(aa) of  the  Hyderabad  Civil  Services  Regulations  are brought to our notice. The said Rules are in identical terms and read as under :

       "(aa).  The pay of a Govt.    servant  whose         seniority/promotion  has  been  revised  and         fixed from  an  earlier  date,  pay  may  be         refixed on the basis of notional duty in the         post from  time  to  time.  For this purpose         the period for  which  the  Govt.    servant         concerned   would  have  officiated  in  the         higher post if he had been promoted actually         on that date may be reckoned on weighted for         only such period  given  from  the  national         date of   promotion.     The  non-qualifying         periods    like     extraordinary     leave,         suspension, etc., should also be deducted.

       Note 1  :    Monetary benefit arising out of         refixation as above, shall be limited to the         duty periods and arrears  shall  be  payable         only  for  the period during which the Govt.         servant actually discharged  the  duties  of         the post.   Arrears shall not be payable for         the national  duty  periods  assigned  as  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       result of revision of seniority position.

       Note 2: While a   Govt.     servant  who  is         already promoted before the revision of  his         seniority  and  who  is  assigned an earlier         date of promotion, shall be allowed  arrears         resulting  from  the pay fixation, in manner         set out in  Note  1  above  for  the  period         during  which  he  actually  discharged  the         duties of the post, and in  the  case  of  a         Govt.   Servant who has been promoted before         the revision of seniority  but  is  promoted         after   the   review  he  shall  be  allowed         monetary benefit of pay fixation,  from  the         date of promotion only.

       Nont 3: In the case of a Govt.  servant  who         has  already  retired  or  died  before  the         revision of his seniority  and  fixation  of         pay,  the  arrears  shall  be payable in the         manner indicated in Note  2  above  and  the         monetary  benefit  of pension/family pension         or death-cum-retirement gratuity as the case         may be shall be allowed  from  the  date  of         retirement/death."

The  High  Court  took  the  view  that  the  provisions  of Fundamental  Rule  26  or  Rule  40  of  the Hyderabad Civil Services Regulations have no application  to  cases  falling within  the  ambit of the Act and, therefore, there could be cases  where  grant  of  notional   promotion   should   not legitimately  give  rise  to  a  valid  claim for payment of arrears of salary either on the ground that the officer  did not   actually  hold  the  post  at  the  relevant  time  or otherwise.  That principle  could  not  be  applied  to  the present case.   A wrong had been committed in unduly dealing the finalsation of seniority and giving  promotions  thereto and  hence  denial  of  monetary  benefits  to them would be arbitrary  in  violation  of  Articles  14  and  16  of  the Constitution.

       In   normal  circumstances  when  the  retrospective promotions are  effected  all  benefits  flowing  therefrom, including  monetary benefits, must be extended to an officer who has been denied promotion  earlier.    However,  on  the reorganisation  of  States  a large number of officers stood allotted from different States to the newly formed State and their services had to be intergrade  on  various  principles and several  agencies  were involved in the same.  The steps to be taken thereto were one of formulation  of  principles, publication  of  a  provisional  inter-State seniority list, inviting  objections   thereto,   consideration   of   those objections in  consultation  with  the  Central  Govt.   and acting upon its directions to bring the  seniority  list  in conformity with  such  directions.    This  entire  exercise involved a good deal of time and gave rise to  extraordinary situation.    It   is  in  those  circumstances  that  Rules contained in the Fundamental Rule  26  or  Rule  40  of  the Hyderabad Civil Services Regulations have been framed.  As a matter of fact, rules of erstwhile State regarding seniority are  not  applicable  in  the  new  State  as  allottees are governed by the Act  and  seniority  is  finalised  therein. Even so, we do not see that there is any impediment to frame new rules affecting conditions of service off such allottees but in  conformity with the Act.  Surely new rules cannot be

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

brushed aside by saying that  they  are  not  applicable  to cases coming  under  the Act.  There is no contention either in the High Court or before  us  that  they  are  formed  in contravention of the Act.  In this background we fail to see as to why the Rules are not applicable to the respondents as held by the High Court.

       In the result, we allow this appeal, set  aside  the order  made by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. But there will be no order as to costs.