Tula Ram and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others

Judgment

(per Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Service Rules, 2011 as being in violation of Section 74 of the Uttar 2000 Pradesh (Contained as Annexure no.2 to this writ petition); Reorganization Act, b) of mandamus directing Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature respondents not to implement the Service Rules, 2011 and till the pendency of the writ petition the cadre structure of the 1 petitioners of District Level shall not be changed.”

2. According to petitioners, they were appointed against a post in District level Cadre before State Reorganization, however, their cadre is made State level by the Uttarakhand Accounts Cadre (Rural Development Department) Services Rules 2011. This according to them is in violation of proviso to Section 74(1) of Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)

3. It is not in dispute that petitioners were appointed as Junior Clerk in ministerial cadre of Rural Development Department in the year 1993 and their services were governed by Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Production and Rural Development Department Ministerial Services Rules, 1980. The 1980 Rules contemplated separate cadres for Headquarter, Zonal Office and District Offices and petitioners were appointed as Junior Clerk in District Office at Haridwar.

4. Learned State Counsel points out that after Reorganization of State of U.P., petitioners were redesignated as Assistant Accountant in terms of a policy decision taken by Government in the year 2004 and Commissioner, Rural Development, Uttarakhand became their appointing authority.

5. Learned State Counsel further submits that the highest promotional post available to the petitioners was that of Accountant to which they were promoted before enforcement of 2011 Rules. He submits that proviso to Section 74(1) of the Act is not attracted as petitioners willingly accepted their redesignation as Assistant Accountant given by Uttarakhand State and 2 due to redesignation of their post, their appointing authority was also changed from District Development Officer to Commissioner, Rural Development.

6. Learned State Counsel further submits that promotional prospects of the petitioners are not going to be affected as petitioners have already reached the highest position before enforcement of 2011 Rules,

impugned in the writ petition. He also submits that their seniority also is not going to be affected.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners per contra, contends that Cadre of Accountant and Assistant Account under the new Rules, namely, the Uttarakhand Accounts Cadre (Rural Development Department) Services Rules, 2011, is now State level and petitioners will now be liable for transfer anywhere in the State which amounts to change in conditions of service; thus proviso to Section 74(1) of the Act would be attracted. Section 74 of the Act is extracted below for ready reference:- “74. Other provisions relating services.—(1) Nothing in this section or in section 73 shall be deemed to affect on or after the appointed day, provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State: the operation of Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day in the case of any person deemed to have been allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh or to the State of Uttaranchal under section 73 shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with 3 previous approval Government. the Central (2) All services prior to the appointed day rendered by a person,— (a) if he is deemed to have been allocated to any State under section 73, shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of that State; (b) if he is deemed to have been allocated the Union administration of the Uttaranchal, shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of the Union, connection with for the purposes of the rules regulating his conditions of service. (3) The provisions of section 73, shall not apply in relation to members of any All-India Service.”

8. Admittedly, petitioners accepted redesignation as Assistant Accountant without demur redesigantion, Commissioner, Rural Development Department became their appointing authority. Commissioner, Rural Development is head of Rural Development Department and a person appointed by him is liable to be transferred anywhere in the State. Before redesignation as Assistant Accountant, their appointing authority was District Development Officer, who is a District level authority.

9. As petitioners kept mum when Commissioner, Rural Development Department became their appointing authority in 2004, therefore, the challenge thrown by them to the service rules notified in 2011 would be barred by acquiescence. Moreover, earlier, petitioners were serving in Ministerial Cadre and in 2004 they became member of Accounts Cadre which is a different 4 cadre altogether. Change of cadre from Ministerial to Accounts was never questioned by them, which indicates that it was done with their consent.

10. Appointments to superior post under the Government is made by a State level authority and such appointees are member of State cadre. District level authority are competent to make appointment only against subordinate posts which have District level cadre. Thus, change of cadre from District level to State level cannot be termed as disadvantageous to a member of District cadre as it results in upgrading status of a member of District cadre. Normally, such change is due to promotion of District cadre employees.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as member of State level cadre, petitioners would be liable to be transferred anywhere within the State while they were not so liable under the 1980 Rules.

12. The said contention is bereft of merit. The status of the petitioners was altered in 2004 when they were re-designated as Assistant Accountant and they ceased to be governed by the Ministerial Rules of 1980 and Commissioner (Rural Development Department) became their appointing authority.

13. A Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors. 1974 (1) SCC 19 held that though employment under the Government like that under any other master may have a contractual origin, the Government servant acquires a ‘status’ on appointment to his office. As a result, his rights and obligations are liable to be determined under statutory or constitutional 5 authority which for, its exercise, requires no reciprocal consent. The Government can alter the terms and conditions of its employees unilaterally and though in modern times consensus in matters relating to public services is often attempted to be achieved, consent is not a pre-condition of the validity of rules of service, the contractual origin of the service notwithstanding.

14. Even otherwise also change of cadre from District level to State level will not attract proviso to Section 74(1) of the Act as it does not vary the conditions of service of petitioners to their disadvantage. Neither their promotional prospects nor their emoluments, age of superannuation or retiral benefits are going to be altered to their disadvantage because of such change of cadre.

15. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the challenge to the Service Rules of 2011 thrown by petitioners is without any substance. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter.

16. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Dated: 24.06.2025 SS (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) 6