STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & Anr. v. SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (DEAD) BY L.RS

Misc. Petition No. 188of1974 decided on 17-11-1964 (M.P. High Court). ,. -- l.11 .. M. P. STATE v. RAMESHWAR PRASAD (Dead) (Fazal Ali, !.) 95 9 State could make their representations only after the final gradation A In view of this decision the respondent appears to list was published. have filed his. second representation on February 18, 1965 as mentioned In this representation also the respondent contended that the above. services rendered by the Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh officers prior to the coming into force of the Sales Tax Acts in the respective States should not have been counted for the purpose of determining the seniority of the respondent. B Thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition the Madhya Pradesh High Court on February 16, 1966, praying for quashing the gradation list. The appellant filed his return on July 8, 1966 and the High Court by its judgment dated September 20, 1969 allowed the petition and quashed the gradation list insofar as it affected the res pondent and the other five officers who were shown above him. The C appellant then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court which was dismissed on November 21, 1969 and thereafter move ed this Court for special leave to appeal which was granted on March 25,. 1971. The High Court appears to have quashed a part of th~ gradation list In the first place it held, following the deci- D mainly on two grounds. sion of the High Court in Kanahyalal Pandit's case (supra) that as the final gradation list was published on November 11, 1964 the res pondent had the right to make his representation thereafter and since his representation was not considered the order of the Government sanctioning the final gradation list was legally erroneous. Secondly it was held by the High Court that the contention of the respondent that the services rendered by the other five officers in Madhya Bharat E and Vindhya Pradesh ought not to have been considered as valid and should have been given effect to by the Government in preparing the the materials final gradation list. We are satisfied after perusal of that the first ground on which the High Court quashed the gradation list was not at all sound and on that ground alone the order of the High Court is liable to be set aside. It is manifest that the object of pre paring a tentative or provisional gradation list was to give an oppor- tunity to the officers whose seniority was determiiled in the make their representations in order to satisfy the Government regard- ing any mistake or error that had crept in the gradation list. If the employee concerned did not file his representation within a month from the date of the publication of the provisional gradation list, then his representation should have been rejected outright. The Madhya Pradesh High Court was in error in taking the view that the employee G concerned should have waited for filing his representation until final gradation list was published. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kanahyalal Pandit's case (supra) had observed as follows : F "According to the view taken in these cases, the prepara tion of combined gradation list by the State Government is, generally speaking. only an incidental or subsidiary act rnch as would aid and assist the Central Government in dis- charging its statutory responsibility of integration of services . If so, the petitioner should wait until the final gradation list H ' .. ' \ 960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] 2 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H is publishe~, for it may well be that he may have no cause for any gnevance against that list. On the other hand if he finds. that. he is aggri~ved thereby, he is entitled to reprc ~e~t agamst ~t under sect10n 115(5) ibid and he has a right to 111s1st ~ha~ his. representation receives 'proper consideration'. There 1s, m this view, no ground for interfering at present with t~e o~der passed 1?Y the Government of India on the peti tioner s representallon dated 5 January· 1962." The aforesaid view taken by the High Court is not at all intelligible. In fact the purport of s. 115(5) (b) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was that there should be a fair and equitable treatment of all persons affected by the provisions of that section. This could only be done if before a final gradation list was prepared the officers were ~ven an opportunity to acquaint the Government with their respective points of view. It was indeed a strange view to take that the provi sional gradation list was absolutely of no consequence and after the said list was finalised and the time for filing representation expired, then alone the employees concerned should have been asked to file their representations. This is really putting the cart before the horse. Once the list was finalised, it would be difficult for the Government to review its orders which would lead to serious complications and dislocation to the service structure of the State. It appears to us from a perusal of the various clauses of s. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act that the statute contemplated three stages for determining the seniority of the ofticers-(i) the formation of Advisory Committees and determination of principles on the basis of which the seniority was to be determined; (ii) the preparation of a provisional gradation list so as to give an opportunity to the employees concerned to file their objections; and (iii) the publication of the final gradation list after consideration of the objections filed by the employees concerned and taking an overall view of the matter. Madhya Pradesh High Court that the representation filed by the respon dent was premature is legally erroneous and we are unable to agree with the same. We are,, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kanahyalal Pandit's case (supra) decided on November 17, 1964 was not correctly decided. The High Court in the instant case has based its order mainly on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh Court in Kanahyalal Pandit's case (supra) which being incorrectly decided, the judgment of the High Court in this case must be quashed on this ground alone, and the representa- tion filed by the respondent along after the expiry of the time men tioned in the Gazette publishing the provisional gradation list would have to be rejected as belated. In these circumstances, therefore, the view of Even on merits a cursory glance of the principles and the formula formulated by the Government in preparing the gradation list would reveal that no injustice or prejudice was caused to the respondent. In paragraph-3 of the dounter-affidavit by the appellants it has been averred as follows : • . ... "It is Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh units had become final that the inter se seniority further submitted M. P. STATE v. RAMESHWAR PRASAD (Dead) (Fazal Ali, J.) 961 after taking into consideration the service rendered in Princely Stat·es and cannot now be challenged. After seniority in the units of Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh was finally determined, tlie posts of' Assistant Sales Tax Offi cers of Mahakoshal were equated with Inspectors of Sales Tax of Madhya Bharat and Sales Tax Inspectors including Assist ant District Excise and Sales Tax Officer of. Vindhya Pradesh region. According to the principles adopted for determining the seniority, the length of continuous service on equated post was considered. The seniority of a person is determined with reforence to a particular date allotted to him for this purpose. When once the seniority in the integrating units was determined in this manner by the Governments of those units, it is submitted that the seniority of the incumbents from the units of Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh could not be disturbed after the reorganisation of States under section 115 of that Act to the detriment of the incumbents." It has thus been explained by the appellants that as the Sales Tax Department in the integrating States of Madhya Pradesh was new the persons obsorbed in the Department brought with them the seniority It was also pointed out in the counter already assigned to them. aJfidavit that in these circumstances it cannot be said that as the Sales Tax Department came into existence in 1950 in Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh regions, the personnel of these regions ipso facto be came junior to those in Mahakoshal region where the Act had come into force in 1947. We fully agree with the explanation given by the appellants in the counter-affidavit as the same appears to be reason able and convincing, and seeks to chalk out an objective formula so that the least prejudice is caused to the employees concerned. It is, manifest that the services rendered in the erstwhile princ·ely States by the officers who were put above the r_espondent were taken into account in the equated posts. Thus the equation of the posts was in conformity with the principles laid down in s. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act and was done in consultation with the Advisory Committee and was finally approved by the Central Government. Toraccept the pray er of the respondent would be to set at naught the services rendered by the officers who were put above the the erstwhile princely State in grades which were more or less similar to the one held by the respondent. In these circumstances we find ourselves unable to agree, even on merits, with the view taken by the High Court. respondent • A B c D E F • '; •• In Union of India & Anr. v. P. K. Roy & Others(') a similar argu ment made by some of the employees coming from erstwhile princely States was repelled and this Court observed as follows : G "In our opinion, "the procedure adopted in this case does not contravene the provisions of s. 115 ( 5) .of the said Act, because it was the Central Government which laid down the principles for int·egration, it was the Central Government which considered the representations and passed final orders, and both the preliminary and final gradation lists were prepared H . "i (I) [1968] 2 S.C.R. 186, J98 • 9 6.2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] 2 s.c.R. A B C D and published by the State Government under the direction and with the sanction of the Central Government." Similarly in N. Subba Rao etc. v. Union of India & OtheT.5.(1) this Court laid down that under s. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act two requirements were necessary-(i) that there should be a division and integration of the services among the new States; and (ii) that a fair and equitable treatment should be ensured to all persons affected In that case also the Conference of the Chief by the integration. Secretari·~s had preceded the drawing; up of the provisional gradation list formulating four principles, namely, (i) the nature and duties of a post; (ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officers holding a post; the extent of territorial or other charge held or respon sibilities discharged; (iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, pres- cribed for the two posts; and (iv) the salary of the post. These prin ciples were approved by the Court in that case. In the instant case also the appellants have stated in their counter affidavit that the principles mentioned above were duly taken into con sideration' and in addition to this the equated grades held by the res pondent and the other officers were also taken into consideration order to fix the seniority of the respondent. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the. Government had prepar·ed the final gradation list after an objective and thorough consi deration of the various aspects of the career of the employees and the principles which governed the list were wholly in consonance with the provisions of s. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. E For these reasons,. therefore, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court dated September 20, 1969 is set aside. As the res pondent is already dead we make no order as to costs. S. R. Appeal allowed. ,. .. • •• (!) [1973] l S.C.R. 945.