1. Integration of states — Reorganization of judicial services — Appointment to lower rank — Challenge under Article 311 of the Constitution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
1957 Supreme(SC) 140
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
28th November 1957
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR AND VIVIAN BOSE, JJ.
Rajvi Amar Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 330 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Ratnaparkhi A. G., Advocate, with him), for appellant; M/s R. Ganpathy Iyer, Ram Avtar Gupta and T. M. Sen, Advocates, for Respondent.
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, RAM AVTAR GUPTA, RATNAPAKHI ANANT GOVIND, T.M.SEN
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, R.Ganapathy Iyer, RAM AVTAR GUPTA, RATNAPAKHI ANANT GOVIND, T.M.SEN
Upon the integration of one state into another, existing service contracts terminate automatically. A guarantee that service conditions remain "not less advantageous" protects pay and emoluments but does not guarantee the retention of a specific rank or post in the reorganized service.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311 - Reduction in rank - Integration of States - Termination of service contracts - Covenant guarantee regarding conditions of service - Whether appointment to a lower post after integration constitutes reduction in rank. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 23)
(B) Service Law - Change of sovereignty - When one State is absorbed in another whether by accession, conquest, merger or integration, all contracts of service between the prior Government and its servants automatically terminate and thereafter those who elect to serve in the new State, and are taken on by it, serve on such terms and conditions as the new State may choose to impose. (Para 16)
(C) Covenant Guarantee - A guarantee that conditions of service will not be less advantageous than those existing at a certain date does not guarantee the retention of the same rank or post, provided pay and emoluments are maintained. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
An officer serving as a District and Sessions Judge in a former state was integrated into a new state. Following reorganization, the number of such posts was reduced. The officer was initially posted on an ad hoc basis and later substantively appointed as a Civil Judge. The officer contended that this appointment reduced his rank without providing an opportunity to show cause, thereby violating Article 311 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the previous postings in the new state were purely transitional and temporary. The substantive appointment as a Civil Judge was the first such appointment in the new state. Since the pay and emoluments were maintained, the guarantee provided in the integration covenant that conditions would not be less advantageous was fulfilled.
Issues: Whether the appointment of the officer as a Civil Judge after the integration of states constituted a reduction in rank violating Article 311 of the Constitution, and whether the integration covenant guaranteed the retention of the original rank.
Ratio Decidendi: Upon the absorption of one state into another, existing service contracts terminate automatically. New appointments are made on terms decided by the successor state. A guarantee of "not less advantageous" conditions refers to emoluments and general terms, not necessarily the specific rank or designation. Since the first substantive appointment in the new state was as a Civil Judge, no reduction in rank occurred, and Article 311 was not attracted.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether transfer orders created a permanent right to a specific post and whether substantive appointment to a lower rank violated Article 311. (Para 6 , 11 , 15 )
3. Integration terminates prior service contracts — New terms are imposed by the successor state — Transfer orders are transitional and not substantive appointments. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
4. Absorption of one state into another automatically terminates prior service contracts, and employees serve on terms and conditions imposed by the new state. (Para 16 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 24 )
6. What is the legal effect of state integration on existing service contracts?
When one state is absorbed into another through accession, conquest, merger, or integration, all contracts of service between the prior government and its servants automatically terminate. Those who continue to serve in the new state do so on terms and conditions the new state chooses to impose. (Para 16 )
7. Does a guarantee that service conditions will not be less advantageous ensure the retention of rank?
No. A guarantee that conditions will not be less advantageous than those existing at a specific date ensures that the new conditions are not worse, but it does not guarantee that the rank or conditions will remain identical or improve. (Para 17 , 18 )
8. Can a transfer order during a transitional reorganization be treated as a substantive appointment?
No. A transfer order cannot be equated to an order of appointment. During transitional arrangements where new cadres have not yet been established, such orders are considered temporary and incidental rather than a determination to post an employee permanently in a particular cadre. (Para 20 , 22 )
9. When is Article 311 of the Constitution attracted regarding reduction in rank after state integration?
Article 311 is not attracted if the previous postings in the new state were purely transitional and temporary. In such cases, the first substantive appointment made after the finalization of new cadres does not constitute a reduction in rank. (Para 23 )
Judgment
BOSE, J.: This appeal arises out of a writ petition for mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
2. the appellant was a District and Sessions Judge in the former Bikaner State. He was appointed on 29-1-1948, in the grade of Rs. 500-40-700 and worked as such till 7-4-1949.
3. On that date a new State of Rajasthan was formed by the integration of a number so States (including the former State of Bikaner) by means of a Covenant signed by the High Contracting Parties.
4. Article XVI (1) of the Covenant ran thus:
"The United State hereby guarantees either the continuance in service of the permanent members of the public service of the former Rajasthan State and of each of the new Covenanting States on conditions which will not be less advantageous than those on which they were serving on 1-11-1948 or the payment of reasonable compensation or retirement on proportionate pension."
5. the integration necessarily involved a reorganisation of the various services in the several integrating States. On the judicial side it was found that there were as any as twenty eight Courts of District and Sessions Judges in the aggregate. In the integrated State it was proposed to have only fifteen. The reorganisation took time and in the interval certain interim arrangements had to be made. These arrangements are set out in a Rajasthan Gazette Notification dated 25-5-1950. We append the relevant extracts:
"4. In Appendix F.... have been indicated the provisional positing on an ad hoc basis of the posts specified in Appendices A to E.
* * * * *
6. All the appointments mentioned in the different Appendices, attached to this Order, are provisional. The emoluments of none or these officers appointed are being affected and they will continue to draw their existing salaries until further orders. All the appointments are without prejudice to the creation of a Judicial Service in Rajasthan to be formed in accordance with the rules which may be made therefor."
Appendix F is headed-
"Ad hoc postings of Judicial Officers to Civil and Sessions Courts."
The appellant was appointed under this heading in Part II as a civil and Additional Sessions Judge in the Jaipur Division.
6. But before this Notification was made, namely on 9-12-1949, the appellant received the following order from the new Rajasthan Government:
"Shri Amar Singh, District and Sessions Judge, Churn, is transferred to Ganganagar as District and Sessions Judge, Ganganagar." Among other contentions, the appellant relies on this as an election by the new Government to continue him in his original post and contends that it could not later change its mind and make his service provisional as it purported to do in the notification just cited.
7. Two months after the notification, namely on 31-7-1950, the appellant s increment became due and Government sanctioned it in the following terms:
"Sanction is accorded to the grant of a stipulated increment of Rs. 40 p. m., in the scale of Rs. 500-40-700 to Shri Rajvi Amar Singh, District and Sessions Judge in Bikaner Division, with effect from 23-3-1950, thereby raising his salary from Rs. 540 to Rs. 580 p. m."
8. When the final re-organisation was brought into force and the twenty eight Courts of District and Sessions Judges reduced to fifteen, the appellant was posted as Civil and Additional Sessions Judge on an ad hoc basis on 25-5-1950
9. On 11-9-1950, the appellant made a representation to the Government of Rajasthan against his posting of 25-5-1950, as an ad hoc Civil and Additional Sessions Judge. He says in his writ petition to the High Court that-
"he was given to understand that these ad hoc postings were without prejudice to the claims of the Government servants for a suitable position in the integrated set up on permanent basis."
This allegation was admitted by the opposite party.
10. Later, he was appointed substantively as Civil Judge on 23-4-1951. He was placed in Group C (Civil Judges and Munsiffs) and placed at No. 18 in the list of junior posts. His p
