SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 935

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. BHARUCHA, FAIZAN-UDDIN AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
S. R. Bhagwat and others, Petitioners
Versus
State of Mysore, Respondent.
Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 1501 of 1973,
D/- 12-9-1995.

Advocates:
A.K.PANDEY, K.M.Reddy, M.VIRAPPA, NOBIN SINGH, R.P.VADHVANI

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Section 115 - conditions of service - payment of consequential benefits - Court do not find any force in either of contentions - It is admitted in his claim statement that he claimed ownership over all properties - IT is also to be seen that when proceedings to determine surplus land Om sent a representation claiming lands as tenant and when it was rejected he proceeding to become final - By side wind Om initiated proceedings before the under Tenancy Act claiming to be tenant - In those proceedings State was not party - He was found to be a tenant under appellant and he was said to be in possession of lands - It is also claimed that appellant filed an application before competent authority that Om was in and authority found against appellant – Held, On the facts it is contended that as Om was in possession land and the appellant had no right over those lands Tenancy Act he lost his right as an owner - Therefore self same land cannot be included as his holding - Court do not find any force this contention - As seen all Proceedings initiated by Om only after appellant submitted his statement claiming those properties - He orders made Act rejecting his claim as tenant to become final - Self same land would not be excluded on premise that Om became deemed owner tenant by operation of orders made Tenancy Act - Therefore without going in to legality of finding recorded by tribunals Tenancy Act appellant remains to be owner so far as the Ceiling Act is concerned and therefore land cannot be excluded from his ownership or holding nor liberty be given to surrender land said to be in possession of Om - IN circumstances court find no force warranting interference - Court therefore strike down Section sub-section as unconstitutional illegal and void - Petition allowed

Judgement

S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. :- William Macpeace Thakare in his lectures on "English Humorists of 18th Century" spoke of Jonathan Swift working in the household of Sir William Temple in the following terms : "His servility was so boisterous that it looked like independence". As will be highlighted in this judgment the servility of judgment-debtor, State of Mysore, the precursor of the State of Karnataka was equally boisterous when it tried to cast off its judgment debtors role by resorting to legislative independence, which as will be demonstrated, has remained a legally futile attempt.

2. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have brought in challenge the provisions of the Mysore Ordinance 1 of 1973, namely. The Mysore State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Ordinance No. 1 of 1973. By an amendment to the petition they have also brought in challenge the provisions of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act) which replaced the State Ordinance. At the stage of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners concentrated his attack on the provisions of sub-sections (2),(3),(4),(5), (6) and (8) of Section 4 as well as Section 11 sub-section (2) of the Act in so far as they conflicted with the order of the High Court, which had become final between the parties. It is not necessary to refer hereinafter to the provisions of the erstwhile Ordinance which has been replaced by the Act, the provisions of which are brought on the anvil of secrutiny in this petition.

Background Facts

2-A. In order to highlight the grievance of the petitioners against the impugned provisions of the Act it is necessary to note at the outset the facts leading to this petition. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 were civil servants of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and Bombay. Their services stood allotted to the new State of Mysore under Section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Reorganisation Act). The new State of Mysore was formed with effect from 1-11-1956 under the provisions of the Reorganisation Act, enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its powers under Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution of India. Section 115 of the Reorganisation Act provided for allotment of ciril servants of the erstwhile States territories of which were transferred to the successor State by the provisions of Part II of the Act and accordingly the petitioners services stood statutorily allotted to the new State of Mysore. In this context the Parliament conferred the power of integation of services on the Central Government under Section 115(5) of Reorganisation Act. Accordingly integration of services took effect from 1-11-1956.

3. After the reorganisation of the States the Central Government for purposes of effecting integration of services laid down the principles relating to equation of posts and the preparation of seniority lists. The Central Government also directed the State Government to decide provisionally the equation of posts and also to fix seniority and to call for representations from the aggrieved officials, to send the same for final decision by the Government of India. In pursuance of the directions of the Central Government, the State Government took its own time to prepare provisional Inter- State Seniority Lists and to call for objections. The State Government also directed the appointing authorities of the new State of Mysore to make provisional promotions on the basis of the provisional inter-StateSeniority Lists subject to the clear condition that promotion should be revised in accordance with the ranking in the final Seniority Lists to be effective from 1-11-1956 as decided by the Government of India in execise of its powers under Section 115(5) of the Reorganisation Act. Sub-section (7) of Section 115 of the Reoganisation Act laid down that, nothing in this se















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top