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

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: G. R. PRABHAVALKAR & ORS.(with connected appeal)

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/03/1973

BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. ALAGIRISWAMI, A. DUA, I.D.

CITATION:  1973 AIR 2102            1973 SCR  (3) 714  1973 SCC  (4) 183  CITATOR INFO :  R          1975 SC 929  (12)  R          1977 SC 161  (10,12)  RF         1977 SC1553  (3)

ACT: States  Reorganisation Act (37 of 1956) s.  115-Equation  of Officers from different States when integrated-Principles.

HEADNOTE: Under  s. 115 of the States Re-organisation Act,  1956,  the Central Government has to determine the principles governing the equation of posts and prepare a common gradation list by integration of services in different States which have  been reorganised.   The Central Government is bound to  ensure  a fair  and equitable treatment to officers in the  matter  of integration of services and the preparation of the gradation list.  It must give full and fair opportunity to the parties affected  to  make  representations  and  must  give  proper consideration   to,  those  representations.To  assist   the Central Government in this task and for a proper  considera- tion  of  the  representations  the  Central  Government  is empowered to establish an Advisory Committee.  It is not for the  Court to lay down the principles to be adopted for  the purpose  of equation so long as the Central Government  Acts properly according to the provisions of the Act.  The  power of  the  Court is only to see that the authority  has  acted properly  in accordance with the statute; and it  cannot  go into  the merits of the equation of posts which is a  matter within the province of the Central Government., Further,  in the case of equation of posts, especially among officers who are  allotted from other States, it cannot be done with  any mathematical accuracy.  There will be some hardship or other caused  to  the  officers of one particular  region  or  the other.   That is inevitable when service conditions  of  the officers coming from different regions vary.  However, if  a particular  decision  is "mala fide or  arrived  on  totally irrelevant or extraneous considerations such a decision  can be interferred with by Courts. [722B-G] In  the  present  case, certain sales-tax  officers  of  the Madhya  Pradesh State were equated to grade II  officers  of the  Maharashtra  State.  The officers of the  Bombay  State

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

filed  a writ petition challenging the order of the  Central Government,  on  the  ground that they  were  not  given  an opportunity  to make representations and that  the  decision had been arrived at taking into consideration irrelevant and extraneous  matters,  and that the Madhya  Pradesh  officers should  have  been  equated to grade  III  officers  of  the Maharashtra  State.  The proceedings were adjourned  by  the High Court to enable the Central Government to consider  any representations that may be made by the concerned  officers. After  such consideration the Central  Government  expressed the  view that the equation already made was  correct.   The High  Court, however, quashed the decisions of  the  Central Government.  on the grounds that relevant matters  were  not considered  and that irrelevant and extraneous matters  were taken into account. Allowing the appeal to this Court, HELD  : (1) It is true that a decision taken by the  Central Government  without  giving an opportunity to  the  officers affected  to make representations is not a valid  one.   But the earlier order in the present case 715 has  been struck down by the High Court, not on  the  ground that  the Bombay Officers (petitioners) had not  been  given opportunity  to make representations, but on  other  grounds which are not tenable. [724B-C] (2)  Assuming  the  Central  Government  did  not  give   an opportunity   to   the  Bombay  Officers   to   make   their representations before passing the earlier order the  defect was rectified by the fresh order passed later. [724C] (3)  The later order shows that the Central  Government  had considered only very relevant factors and that the  decision had  been  taken in conformity with, the provisions  of  the Act.   The  Central  Government had  constituted  a  Central Advisory  Committee  composed of the Chairman of  the  Union Public Service Commission, a retired Judge of the High Court and a retired Law Secretary to the Government of India.   It was  after taking into account the views of  that  Committee and  having regard to the comments of the State  Governments and the representations made by the officers concerned  that the Central Government took the decision.  The four  factors which  had to be taken into account as per the  decision  at the   conference  of  the  representatives  of   the   State Governments and Government of India were all duly considered by  the Central Government, and no irrelevant or  extraneous matters   have  influenced  the  decision  of  the   Central Government.    No.  mala  fides  were  urged   against   the authorities [722G; 723D-F; 725A-E] (4)  Section 115(5)(b) refers to a proper  consideration  of any representation made by any officer.  This was  satisfied in  this  case.  There is no further obligation  to  give  a personal hearing to the officers concerned. [726G-H] (5) The fact that the State Government took steps to  comply with  the  directions of the High Court cannot lead  to  the inference   that  the  appeal  by  the  Union   had   become unfructuous. [727C-D] [In  the circumstances it is not necessary to  consider  the point  raised  by  the appellant that  where  all  the  four relevant   factors   decided  upon  had  been   taken   into consideration,  the  fact  that  certain  other   additional matters  relevant to the question had also been  taken  into account  by the Central Government would not make the  order of the Central Government erroneous]. [725E-G; 276B] Union  of India & Anr. v. P. K. Roy & Ors. [1969] 2  S.C.R., 186, N.Subba Rao etc. v., Union of India and others,  [1972] 2 S.C.R. 862,B.     Rajish Rai and others v. Union of  India

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

and  others,  [1973] 1 S.C.C. 61, Ryots  of  Garabandho  and other Villagers v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi and Another L.R., 70 Indian appeals 129, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2303  of 1969. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and dated February 25. 26, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Misc.  Petition No. 75 of 1967 and Civil Appeal No. 2304 of 1969. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated February  25,  26, 1969 of the Bombay High  Court  in  Misc. Petition No. 75/67. 716 F.  S.  Nariman, Additional Soliciter-General of  India,  G. Day, B.  D. Sharma and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant,  (in  C.A. No. 2303) of Respondent No. 11 (in C.A. No- 2304). K. K. Singhvi, R. B. Datar, for respondents Nos.  1 to 7 (in both the appeals). S.J. Deshpande and A. G.Ranthparkhi, for respondents Nos. 8, 10 to 13 (in C.A. No. 2303) and for the appellants (in  C.A. No. 2304). B. D. Sharma for respondent Nos. 14 & 15 (in C.A. No.  2303) and respondent No. 8 (in C.A. No. 2304). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VAIDIALINGAM,  J.-These two appeals, by special  leave,  are directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  25/26th February,  1969,  of the Bombay High Court  in  Miscellenous Petition No. 75 of 1967, quashing the orders of the  Central Government as well as certain other orders equating the post of Sales Tax Officer of old Madhya Pradesh with the post  of Sales Tax, Officer, Grade II, of ,old Bombay.  Civil  Appeal No.  2303 of 1969 is by the Union of India and Civil  Appeal No. 2304 of 1969 is by some of the Sales Tax Officers of the old Madhya Pradesh State.  They are also respondents in  the Union’s  appeal.   The  appellants, in  the  latter  appeal, support the Union Government in all respects.  In the course of the judgment, we will refer to the array of parties as in Civil Appeal No. 2303 of 1969. Respondents  8  to 13 and 15, along with  six  others,  were serving  as  Sales  Tax  Officers in  the  State  of  Madhya Pradesh.   On the reorganisation of states as from  November 1,  1956, these 13 officers were allotted to  the  bilingual State  of Bombay.  By Notification dated November 16,  1957, the  State Government issued an order for equation  of  the various  posts.  The Sales Tax Officers from Madhya  Pradesh were  equated with Sales Tax Officers Grade III  of  Bombay. At this stage it may be mentioned that in Bombay there  were three  Grades of Sales Tax Officers, being Grades 1, II  and III.  On the basis of the equation adopted by the State Gov- ernment, a seniority list was published on May 21, 1959.  In the  meanwhile, the Sales Tax Officers allotted from  Madhya Pradesh.  not  satisfied  with the  decision  of  the  State Government equating them with Grade III officers of  Bombay, had  made representations to the Central Government.   Their grievance was that they should have been equated with  Grade 11  officers of Bombay.  The Central Government, having  due regard to the principles formulated earlier in  consultation with the State Governments and after consulting the  Central Advisory Committee constituted for the purpose, accepted the representation of the erstwhile Madhya  717

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

Pradesh  Officers  and  equated  them  with  the  Sales  Tax Officers, Grade II, in the reconstituted Bombay State.  This decision was conveyed by the Central Government to the State authorities  by its letter dated April 23, 1960.  The  State Government  gave  effect  to the  decision  of  the  Central Government  by its Resolution dated April 27, 1961;  and  on that  basis published also a seniority list on  October  10, 1963,  and invited representations and objections  from  all the  officers.  In this seniority list, the erstwhile  Sales Tax  Officers of the Madhya Pradesh State were equated  with Grade  11  officers of the Maharashtra State and  they  were also given suitable ranks.  From the records it is seen that only  the  first  respondent, who was already  a  Sales  Tax Officer  in the Bombay State, filed a  representation.   His representation was rejected by the Central Government. Respondents 1 to 7 and one G. S. Kochrekar (since  deceased) filed  Miscelleneous  Petition No. 75 of 1967  in  the  High Court,  under Article 226, challenging the decision. of  the Central  Government  and the State equating  the  Sales  Tax Officers  of  the erstwhile-Madhya Pradesh  State  with  the Sales  Tax Officers, Grade 11, of the Bombay  State.   Their main ground of attack appears to have been that in  arriving at  the  decision  the Central Government did  not  give  an opportunity   to-the   Bombay   officers   to   make   their representations  and that the decision has been  arrived  at taking into consideration irrelevant and extraneous matters. The  Writ  Petition  was  opposed  by  the  Madhya   Pradesh Officers.  The Central Government was also added as a  party at  a later stage of the proceedings before the High  Court. On behalf of the Central Government, an affidavit was  filed by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, detailing the  reasons  for  passing the or of  April  23,  1960.  The proceedings  were adjourned by the High Court to enable  the Central Government to consider the representations that  may be  made by the concerned officers.  Ultimately the  Central Government, by its order dated February 15, 1969,  expressed the view that the equation already made was correct. The High Court has quashed the decisions of the Central Gov- ernment dated April 23, 1960 and February 1-5, 1969 as  also the  Resolution dated April 27, 1961 and the seniority  list published by the State Government.  The two grounds on which the  High  Court has quashed these orders  and  Notification are:-               (1)  if the matters relevant to be  considered               for  the purpose of equation, are  taken  into               account,  the  equation made  by  the  Central               Government is not a rational one; and               (2)  in  equating the Sales  Tax  Officers  of               Madhya Pradesh with Sales Tax Officers,  Grade               II, of 718               of  Bombay, the Central Government have  taken               into   account   irrelevant   and   extraneous               matters. It is now necessary to advert to the relevant provisions  of the  statute,  as  also the various  orders  passed  by  the Central  and State Governments.  The  States  Reorganisation Act,  1956  (hereinafter to be referred to as the  Act)  was passed  on  August  31, 1956. under  section  2(a),  1st  of November,  1956,  is the appointed day’.   Part  X  contains provisions as to services.  Section 114 deals with all India Services. Section 115 contains provisions’ relating  to other services.  Theprovision relevant in this  section is sub-section 5, clause (b),which is as follows:--               Provisions relating to other services.

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

             "115(5)  The Central Government may  by  order               established  one or more  Advisory  Committees               for the purpose of assisting it in regard to               (b)   the  ensuring  of  fair  and   equitable               treatment  to  all  persons  affected  by  the               provisions  of  this section  and  the  proper               consideration  of any representation  made  by               such person", Section 117, which confers powers on the Central  Government to give directions, is as follows               Power of Central Government to give direction.               117.  "The Central Government may at any  time               before  or after the appointed day  give  such               directions  to  any State  Government  as  may               appear  to it to be necessary for the  purpose               of  giving effect to the foregoing  provisions               of  this part and the State  Government  shall               comply with such directions". In  the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary to the  Government of  India, Ministry of Home Affairs, filed before  the  High Court, it has been stated that conferences were held in  May 1956  between the representatives of the  State  Governments and  the  Government  of  India in  New  Delhi  and  it  was unanimously  agreed  that  in determining  the  equation  of posts, the following factors should be borne in mind:-               (1) the nature and duties of a post;               (2) the responsibilities and powers  exercised               by  the officer holding a post; the extent  of               the  territorial  or  other  charge  held   or               responsibilities discharged;  719 (3)  the  minimum  qualifications, if  any,  prescribed  for recruitment to the post; and (4) the salary of the post. That  such  a  decision-was taken is  also  clear  from  the circular  of the State Government dated December  11,  1957. This  circular  was  published for the  information  of  the officers  that the general. principles to be borne  in  mind and referred to earlier, were to be followed in the equation of  posts.   Those principles, it is  further  stated,  were settled at a conference convened by the Government of  India in  May  1956,  which was attended,  among  others,  by  the representatives  of  the  former States  of  Bombay,  Madhya Pradesh,  Hyderabad,  Saurashtra and Kutch.  It  is  further stated  that the factors decided upon where also  considered by  the  Integration Committee of Ministers and  were  found suitable  and that the State Government was making  equation of posts having due regard to these factors. The  State Government by its Resolution dated November  16,. 1957, equated the Sales Tax Officers of Madhya Pradesh  with Sales  Tax  Officers  Grade  III of  BomBay.   This  led  to representations being made by the Madhya Pradesh Officers to the  Central  Government.  In the affidavit  of  the  Deputy Secretary, it is stated that under the provisions of section 115(5)  of the Act, the Central Government  had  constituted the Central Advisory Committee for the purpose of  assisting it  in giving proper considerations to  the  representations that are made by officers of gazetted cadres.. The Committee consisted  of  the  Chairman of  the  Union  Public  Service Commission as its Chairman, Shri P. N. Sapru, Member,  Rajya Sabha  and a retired Judge of the Allahabad High  Court  and Shri K. Y. Bhandarkar, retired Law Secretary to the  Govern- ment   of   India.    It  is   further   stated   that   the representations  received’ from the ex-Madhya Pradesh  Sales Tax  Officers  claiminG equation with Grade 11  officers  of

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

Bombay  were  referred to the said  Advisory  Committee  for their  consideration and advice. it is further  stated  that after  taking  into consideration the points raised  by  the officers in their representations, the comments of the State Government,  the recommendations of the  Advisory  Committee and  other relevant factors, the Central Government  decided that the post of Sales Tax Officer, Madhya Pradesh (Rs. 225- 600)  was to be equated with the post of Sales Tax  Officer, Grade II, Bombay (Rs. 300-650).  It is further stated in the affidavit  that this decision was conveyed to the  State  of Bombay  by  the  Ministry of Home,  Affairs,  Government  of India, in its letter dated April 23. 1960.  A persual of the order  dated April 23, 1960, of the Central Government  also bears out the above facts. On April 27, 1961, the State Government amended its previous Resolution of 1957 so as to accord with the decision of the- 720 Central  Government as contained in its letter  dated  April 23,  1960.   On  the  basis of  this,  equation,  the  State Government  also published a seniority list on  October  10, 1963,  and called for objections.  The  only  representation dated  January 9, 1964, received from the first  respondent, who  pressed his claim to be put in Grade II.  was  rejected ultimately  by  the Central Government and this led  lo  the filing of the Writ Petition by the first respondent as  well as ,certain other officers of the Bombay State. The High Court has discussed at great length the set-up  and the scheme of the Sales Tax Officers in the- two States, the nature  ,of the duties and powers exercised by them as  well as their salary, method of recruitment, chances of promotion and  other matters.  The High Court took the  four  factors, which have been directed to be borne in mind as a result  of the conference held between the representatives of the State Governments  and the Central Government and has come to  the conclusion  that these factors, if correctly  applied,  will not justify the equation of the Madhya Pradesh officers with the  Sales  Tax  Officers, Grade 11,  of  Bombay.   In  fact the .view of the High Court is that on an overall assessment the  Sales  Tax Officers in Madhya Pradesh area were  in  an inferior position and that even the Sales Tax Officer, Grade 111,  of  old  Bombay State are superior to  the  Sales  Tax Officers of Madhya Pradesh.  In another context, the learned Judges  observe that no satisfactory material has been  made available to the Court to show the superiority of the Stales Tax Officers of Madhya Pradesh over the Sales Tax  Officers, Grade  III,  of  Bombay.   The  sum  and  substance  of  the reasoning of the High Court is that as the salary of the old Madhya  Pradesh officers is assured by the Act, they  should be  .satisfied if they are equated with Sales Tax  Officers, Grade III, of Bombay State.  The orders were finally  struck down  on the ground that the relevant factors for  equation have  not  been  properly  considered  and  that  irrelevant matters have been taken into account. It is seen from the judgment of the High Court that on March 19,  1968,  the  proceedings were adjourned  to  enable  the Central  Government to consider the representations  of  the Bombay  officers.  The order of the High Court  dated  March 19,  1968, states that the counsel for the Union  Government made  a  representation that it was willing  to  review  the equation  of posts of Sales Tax Officers from the  erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh after hearing the affected  officers from  the  various integrating areas.   ’The  Government  of India passed an order on February 15, 1969, in and by which the  original  decision dated April 23, 1960,  equating  the Madhya Pradesh officers with Sales Tax Officers Grade 11  of

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

Bombay, was allowed to stand.  721 There is a reference in the judgment that this letter  dated February 15, 1969, was given to the learned Judges and  that it  was also agreed to be shown to the counsel for the  Writ Petitioners.   That  the  High Court has  looked  into  this letter is also clear from the fact that it says that outside matters,  like the hierarchy of the revenue  officers  under the  Land Revenue Code, have been taken into account by  the Central  Government.   There is no other indication  in  the judgment  as  to what attack was made on  this  decision  on behalf  of the Bombay officers.  This order of  the  Central Government also has been quashed by the High Court. On  behalf of the, Union, the learned  Additional  Solicitor General  has  urged  that the High Court  has  grossly  mis- appreciated  the  nature  of the jurisdiction  that  it  was exercising  in such matters.  It was pressed before.us  that the Central Government, having due regard to the  principles that  have  been laid down for the purpose  of  equation  of posts  and  after  a  proper  consideration  of  the  repre- sentations  of the officers and the recommendations  of  the Advisory  Committee, have equated the Madhya  Pradesh  Sales Tax Officers with the Sales Tax Officers,, Grade 11, Bombay. In  arriving  at this decision, it is pointed  out  that  no irrelevant  factor  has  been ’taken into  account  and  the decision  is the only possible one that could be arrived  at in  the  circumstances.   The representations  made  by  the officers  concerned  have  been properly  considered  as  is mandatory under the provisions a the Act.  The Central  Gov- ernment  has acted according to the provisions of  the  Act. Under those circumstances. the learned Additional  Solicitor General urged that the order of the High Court quashing  the orders in question was not justified.  Mr. S. J.  Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No.  2304 of 1969 and Mr. B. D. Sharma, learned counsel, for the State of  Bombay in both these matters have adopted the  arguments of the Additional Solicitor   General. Mr.  K. K. Singhvi learned counsel for the Bombay  officers, has  pointed out that the, orders of the Central  Government have  been passed in violation of the principles of  natural _justice inasmuch as no opportunity given to the  officers concerned  to  make their representation and they  were  not given  a  personal  hearing before  the  Central  Government decided  against  them.  Even the decisions arrived  at,  as pointed out by the High Court, are based on a  consideration of irrelevant and extreneous factors.  He pointed out-  that the  principles  formulated by the  Central  Government,  in consultation  with the State Government, for equation  of  H posits have not been given due regard.  The counsel  further urged  that the equation made by the Central Government,  if allowed to stand, will work great hardship to the Sales  Tax Officers  of  Bombay,  as it will  materially  affect  their chances of promotion. 722 He  further  pointed out that the State Government  has,  in accordance with the decision of the High Court, modified the decision equating the Madhya Pradesh officers with Sales Tax Officers, Grade 11, of Bombay and, therefore, these  appeals have become infructuous. In  our  opinion, the contention of the  learned  Additional Solicitor General are well founded.  The Central Government, under  section  115  of  the  Act,  has  to  determine   the principles governing equation of posts and prepare a  common gradation list by integration of services.  To assist it  in the  task  of  integration  of services  and  for  a  proper

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

consideration of representations, the Central Government  is empowered  to  establish Advisory Committees.   The  Central Government is bound to ensure a fair and equitable treatment to  officers  in the matter of integration of  services  and preparation of gradation lists.  It has also to give a  full and  fair opportunity to the parties affected to make  their representations; and the Central Government has also to give a proper consideration to those representations.  SO long as the  Central Government has acted properly according to  the provisions  of  the Act, we are of the view,  that  a  court cannot go into the merits or otherwise of equation of  posts which   is  matter  within  the  province  of  the   Central Government. It  is no doubt true that the Central Government  must  have due   regard   to  the  principles  enunciated  by   it   in consultation with the states for the purpose of equation  of posts.   It  must  not  only  give  an  opportunity  to  the concerned  officers  to make representations, ’but  it  must also give those representations a proper consideration.   It is  not within the province of the courts to lay  down  what are  the principles to be adopted for purposes of  equation. That  falls within the purview of the statute concerned  and the  authorities charged with such duty.  The power  of  the courts  is only to see that an authority has acted  properly in accordance with the statute.  If that is established, the decision of the authorities concerned will have to stand-. If  a  particular  decision is mala fide or  arrived  at  on totally  irrelevant  and extraneous considerations,  such  a decision can be interfered with by courts.  In this case, no mala  fides  are alleged.  As to whether any  extraneous  or irrelevant  factors  have been taken into  account  will  be dealt with later. The  High Court is of the view that the equation settled  by the Central Government affects prejudicially the officers of Bombay.  By Madhya Pradesh officers being equated with Grade II officers of Bombay State, the High Court observes that-               (a) Bombay officers acting in Grade 11 have to               revert-to Grade III;  723               (b) Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Officers have got               large jumps in salary; and               (e)  even  the little chance of  promotion  is               lost  to tile Bombay Officers till all the  13               officers  from  Madhya Pradesh retire  or  are               exhausted. In our view, the High Court has grossly erred.  In the  case of  equation  of posts, especially among  officers  who  are allotted  from  other  states, it cannot be  done  with  any mathematical accuracy.  There will be some hardship or other caused  to the officers of one particular region  or  other. That  is  inevitable  when the  service  conditions  of  the officers  coming  from  different regions  vary.   When  the Central  Government  was impleaded as a party  in  the  Writ Petition  before the High Court, an affidavit of the  Deputy Secretary,  Home  Affairs, was filed.  That  affidavit  very exhaustively  deals with the circumstances under  which  the Sales Tax Officers of Madhya Pradesh were equated with Sales Tax   Officers,   Grade  11,  of  Bombay  by   the   Central Government’s  order  dated  April  23,  1960.   The  Central Government had constituted the Central Advisory Committee as is  required under sub-section 5 of section 115 of the  Act. The  composition  of  the Committee  has  been  referred  to earlier.  It was, after taking into account the views of the Central  Advisory  Committee and having due  regard  to  the comments  of the State Governments, and the  representations

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

made by the officers concerned that the Central  Government took  the decision.  The factors which had to be taken  into account as per the decision taken at the conference held  in May,  1956, were all duly stated to have been considered  by ’the Central Government.  We do not find that any irrelevant or  extraneous matters have influenced the decision  of  the Central Government.  It is true that a decision taken by the Central  Government without  giving an opportunity to the officers  affected  to make  representations, is not a valid one.  It has ’been  so held  by this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. R. K. Roy  & Ors.(1)   The  jurisdiction  and  powers  of   the   Central Government  under  the Act have- also been laid down  in  N. Suba Rao Etc. v. Union of India and Others(2) and D. Rajish Raj and Others v. Union of India and Others(3).  One of  the points  that  has been stressed by Mr. Singhvi is  that  the decision of the Central Government dated April 23, 1960,  is opposed to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Bombay  Officers  had no opportunity of  making  any  repre- sentations  before  the  said order  was  passed.   We  have already  referred  to ,the fact that  originally  the  State Government  equated the Madhya Pradesh officers  with  Sales Tax Officers, Grade III, (1) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 186. (3) [1973] 1 S.C.C. 61. (2) [1972] 2 S.C.C.862. 724 of    Bombay.    The   Madhya   Pradesh    Officers    filed representations  to  the  Central  Government  against  this equation.   It  is not clear from the  records  whether  any counter   representations  were  received  by  the   Central Government  from  the  Bombay officers.   Nor  is  it  clear whether  the  Central  Government  called  upon  the  Bombay Officers to offer their comments or views on claims made  by the  Madhya Pradesh officers.  Anyhow the order came  to  be passed  on April 23, 1960.  This order has been struck  down by  the  High  Court,  not on the  ground  that  the  Bombay officers  have  not  been  given  an  opportunity  to   make representations, but on other grounds. Assuming that the Central Government did not give an  oppor- tunity to the Bombay officers to make their  representations before  passing the order of April 23, 1960, the  defect  in this  regard stands rectified by the fresh order  passed  on February  15,  1969.  We have already referred to  the  fact that  during  the hearing of the Writ  Petition,  after  the Central Government was impleaded, a representation was  made on  its  behalf  that the Union Government  was  willing  to review the equation of posts of Sales Tax Officers from  the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh after hearing the affected officers  from the various integrating areas.   This  repre- sentation was incorporated in an order of court dated  March 19,  1968 and the proceedings stood adjourned.  There is  no controversy  that all the officers concerned, including  the Bombay   officers  made  representations  to   the   Central Government.   The Bombay officers wanted the order of  April 23,  1960,  to be modified by equating  the  Madhya  Pradesh officers with the Sales Tax Officers, Grade 111, of  Bombay, as was originally done by the State Government.  The  Madhya Pradesh officers, on the other hand, reinforced their  claim to  sustain  the  order  of April  23,  1960.   The  Central Government passed the order on February 15, 1969, which  was made known to the learned Judges hearing the Writ  Petition. In fact this is also one of the orders that has been  struck down  by  the High Court.  When the order  has  been  struck down,  it is quite reasonable, to infer that the  Court  and

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

all  parties were fully aware of the very elaborate  reasons given  by  the Central Government for  equating  the  Madhya Pradesh  Sales  Tax Officers with the  Sales  Tax  Officers, Grade  II,  of Bombay.  There was no attack, so  far  as  we could  see,  levelled by the Writ Petitioners  against  this order  of the Central Government excepting that  a  personal hearing  was  not given to them by the  Central  Government. The High Court brushed aside this order by a mere  statement that  the  additional  matter that was’  considered  by  the Central  Government  related  to the  hierarchy  of  revenue officers  under  the  Land Revenue Code and  that  the  said matter  is outside those to be considered according  to  the minutes  of the joint conference of the  representatives  of the State and the Central Governments. 725 The  order  dated February 15, 1969, passed by  the  Central Government, together with the enclosures, is a very  lengthy one.  It clearly shows that they had taken into account  the representations  made  by the officers both  in  the  former State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Bombay, the various affidavits  and counter-affidavits filed in the  High  Court the representations made by the Bombay Officers the  commits of  the  State Government on those representations  and  the recommendations  of the Central Advisory Committee.   It  is after  a  consideration of these matters  that  the  Central Government  decided to equate the Sales Tax Officers of  old Madhya  Pradesh  with Sales Tax Officers, Grade 11,  of  old Bombay.   A  copy  of  the  explanatory  memorandum  to  the recommendations  of the Central Advisory Committee has  also been  forwarded  by  the Central  Government  to  the  State Government.   The entire proceedings resulting in the  order of  February 15, 1969, leave no doubt in our minds that  the Central  Government  have  considered  only  very   relevant factors  and the decision has also been taken in  conformity with  the  provisions  of the Act They also  show  that  the Central  Government has given a proper consideration to  the representations  made  to  the  Bombay  and  Madhya  Pradesh officers.   The  order deals with every one  of  the  points raised  in  both sets of representations and it  also  gives elaborately the reasons for rejecting the representations of the  Bombay officers and for accepting those of the  Madhya Pradesh officers. The learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that it is only necessary that the authorities concerned should bear in mind the four factors, referred to earlier, in the matter of  equation  of posts’ According to him, when  once,  these factors have been properly taken into account, the mere fact that   certain  other  additional  or.  incidental   matters relevant to the question have also been considered, will not vitiate  the  orders passed by the Central  Government.   In this  connection  the learned Additional  Solicitor  General drew our attention to the decision of the judicial Committee in  Ryots of Garabendho and Other Villagers v.  Zemindar  of Parlakimedi and Another(1).  The provision that the Judicial Committee had to consider was contained in sub-section 2  of section  168 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908,  that  in settling  rents  the  Collector "shall have  regard  to  the provisions  of this Act".  The Judicial Committee held  that these  provisions only require that they must be taken  into consideration by the officers concerned and it is impossible to say that there is a duty on the, part of the officers  to keep rigidly within the limits imposed by these  provisions. Based  upon  this decision, the contention  of  the  learned Additional Solicitor General was that even if certain  other additional matters relevant to the question have been  taken

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

into 726 account  by  the Central Government, its  order  cannot  be, considered to be erroneous.  In our view, the earlier  order dated  April  23, 1960, as well as the, latter  order  dated February  15,  1969, have both been passed  by  the  Central Government  having due regard to the principles settled  for purposes  of  equation of posts.  In this view,  it  is  not necessary for us to consider the point raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General based upon the decision of  the Judicial Committee. This  order  of  February 15, 1969, has not,  in  our  view, received  due consideration at the hands of the High  Court. On the other hand, the High Court has dealt mainly with  the order  dated  April 23, 1960, as well as  the  consequential orders passed by the State Government.  As we are  satisfied that the order of February 15, 1969, has been passed by  the Central Government on a proper consideration of all relevant factors  and materials, it is not necessary for us  to  deal elaborately  with  the reasons given IV the High  Court  for striking  down  the previous order, except to say  that  the High  Court’s  view  in  respect of  those  matters  is  not justified.  Even the grievance that the Bombay officers  did not have an opportunity to make my representation before the order dated April 23, 1960, was passed, has now been removed by  the Central Government furnishing the  said  opportunity before  it  passed  the order of February  15,  1969.   Even before  us, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7,  has not  been  able to point out infirmities, if  any,  in  this order. The  criticism  of Mr. Singhvi,  learned  counsel,  levelled against  the  order of February 15, 1969  that  the  Central Government  did  not give a personal hearing to  the  Bombay officers before passing the order, need not detain us  long. Though  such  a  grievance  was  made  faintly  during   the arguments  in  the  Writ Petition, the High  Court  has  not struck down even this order on this ground.  The High Court, in  the  judgment,  has stated that  the  proceedings  were, adjourned  on  March  19,  1968,  to  enable  "the   Central Governmentto  consider  the  representations  of  the   Writ Petitioners".   Therefore the High Court, which  passed  the order  of  March 19, 1968, adjourning  the  proceedings  had understood  that the object of the said adjournment  was  to enable  the Writ Petitioners to "make  representations"  and that  the  Central Government should properly  consider  the same.   Admittedly,  representations were made by  the  Writ Petitioners  and  as stated earlier by us,  they  have  been dealt  with  by the Central Government in  its  order  dated February  15.  1969.  Section 115(5)(b) refers to  a  proper consideration  of  any representation made by  any  officer. This  is  satisfied  in this  case.   Mr.  Singhvi,  learned Counsel. drew our attention to the decision of this Court in N. Subba Rao Etc. v. Union of India And Others(1) and  urged that it is implicit in the said decision (1) [1972] 2 S.C.C. 862. 727 that  there  is an obligation on the Central  Government  to give a personal hearing to the officers concerned under  the Act.   We have gone though the decision carefully and we  do not find any basis for this contention.  Therefore, there is no substance in this criticism of Mr. Singhvi. Mr.  Singhvi, learned counsel, then referred us to the  fact that  after  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  the  State Government has passed an order on March 19, 1971, the effect of  which  is  to  equate the  Sales  Tax  Officers  of  the

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

erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State with the Sales Tax  Officers, Grade III, of Bombay.  This order, in our opinion, has  been passed  by  the  State Government only to  comply  with  the directions  given by the High Court.  It was made  during  a period  when the appeal against the judgment was pending  in this  Court.  The fact that the State Government took  steps to comply with the directions of the High Court cannot  lead to  the inference that the appeal by the Union of India  has become infructuous. In the result the judgment and order dated 25/26th February, 1969, of the High Court are set aside and Civil Appeals Nos. 2303  and 2304 of 1969 are allowed.  There will be no  order as to costs in both the appeals. V.P.S.                         Appeals allowed. 728