Judgment

RAY, C. J.:- These two appeals are by certificate from the common judgment dated 10 August, 1971 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

2. The State and the Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh are the appellants is Civil Appeal No. 1324 of 1972. The ten appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2648 of 1972, are Taxation Inspectors of the former State of Punjab. They were allocated to Himachal Pradesh because of reorganisation of the State of Punjab. The first seven appellants were confirmed as Taxation Inspectors. The other three appellants were Taxation Inspectors but were not confirmed in that post.

3. The appellants in the former State of Punjab were Sub-Inspectors of Taxation. On 1 April, 1966 the appellants were upgraded from the post of Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors of Taxation. When the appellants were allocated to Himachal Pradesh on the appointed day on 1 November,1966 they were Inspectors of Taxation. The respondents were Excise Sub-Inspectors in Himachal Pradesh on the appointed day. The respondents were upgraded from the position of Excise Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors with effect from 1 May, 1969. That upgrading was with the sanction and under the directions of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 (6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 referred to as the Act. On 29 May 1971 the State of Himachal Pradesh by an executive decision changed the date of upgrading of the respondents from 1 May, 1969 to 1 April, 1966. This upgrading was done by the State of Himachal Pradesh without sanction and direction of the Central Government under Section 82 (6) of the Act.

4. The pre-eminent question which falls for consideration is whether the conditions of service of the appellants have been changed to their disadvantage by the executive decision of the State of Himachal Pradesh on 29 May, 1971 to upgrade the posts of Sub-Inspectors of Excise Department of Himachal Pradesh to Inspectors with effect from 1 April, 1966. The corollary to this question is whether the executive decision of the State of Himachal Pradesh is invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 82 (6) of the Act.

5. The appellants impeached the two seniority lists prepared by the State. In one of the seniority lists appellant Jagdish Ram has been mentioned along with Excise Inspectors of Himachal Pradesh. The other appellants who were confirmed Taxation Inspectors have been shown in the second impeached seniority list as juniors to several unconfirmed Sub-Inspectors of Excise and Taxation belonging to Himachal Pradesh. The appellants contend that they never worked on the Excise side. They further allege that their cadre was different from that of Taxation Inspectors. The appellants impugned the second seniority list on the ground that the Excise and Taxation Sub-Inspectors of Himachal Pradesh were treated at par with Taxation Inspectors of the former State of Punjab. In the second seniority list there is a note to the effect that Excise and Taxation Sub-Inspectors of Himachal Pradesh were being promoted and confirmed with effect from 1 April, 1966, and their cases were sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for necessary orders. The appellants impeached this note as illegal. The contention of the appellants is that the promotion and confirmation of Excise Sub-Inspectors of Himachal Pradesh could not take place with retrospective effect so as to prejudice the rights of the appellants.

6. The grievance of the appellants is that the seniority list of Taxation Inspectors should have been prepared separately. The appellants contend that while they were in the former State of Punjab they belonged to Taxation Cadre and there was a quota fixed in the Punjab Excise and Taxation Service Class III-A Rules, 1956 in their favour for promotion as Excise and Taxation Officers. The appellants contend that they have been deprived of this quota benefit as they were placed in a joint list along with unconfirmed Excise In