Judgment-

M. M. DUTT

( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dimissing the writ petition of the appellant challenging the Government order dated 28/04/1982 as a result of which the appellant was placed below the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the seniority list.

( 2 ) THE appellant was appointed a Reception Officer in the Department of Public Relations and Tourism, Himchal Pradesh, on 26/02/1962 and was confirmed in that post on 12/05/1966. He was temporarily:, promoted to the post of District Public Relations Officer in the pay-scale of Rs. 250-500 on 18/05/1963. On 3/06/1966, a post of Assistant Manager, Tourism, was created in the, pay-scale of Rs. 250-500. One S. P. Singh, who was junior to the appellant was appointed to that post inasmuch as the appellant was already holding the post of District Public Relations Officer in the same scale of pay. It may be stated here that both the posts of District Public Relations Officer and Assistant Manager were ex cadre posts.

( 3 ) ON 26/07/1966, the Department of Public Relations and Tourism was bifurcated and a separate Department of Tourism was created. It is the case of the appellant that he made a representation that he might be transferred to his parent Department, that is, the Department of Tourism.

( 4 ) WHILE the representation of the appellant was pending consideration, the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was enacted. The appointed day under the Act was fixed as 1/11/1966. Under Section 5 of the Act, on and from the appointed day certain territories of the State of Punjab were added to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. Section 83 of the Act provides that every person who immediately before the appointed day is holding or discharging duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Punjab in any area which on that day falls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State and shall be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of or other appropriate authority in that successor State. Under the proviso to Section 83 nothing in that section shall be deemed to prevent a competent authority on or after the appointed day from passing in relation to such person any order affecting his continuance in such post or office.

( 5 ) THE respondents Nos. 4 and 5, who were holding the posts of Tourist Officers in the pay-scale of Rs. 250-350 in the State of Punjab, were allocated to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh as Tourist Officers in the pay-scale of Rs. 250-350. Although there were no posts of Tourist Officer in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, in view of Section 83 of the Act, the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 continued to hold the posts of Tourists Officers.

( 6 ) THE Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in his D. O. letter dated 14/02/1967 issued certain instructions for the purpose of integration of the services of persons from the transferred territory of Punjab into those of the Himachal Pradesh. Paragraph 2 of the said letter is in following terms :-

"2. Action for the integration of the services would have to be initiated soon after the finalisation of allocations. This would involve two steps :

(I) Determination of equivalent posts, and

(II) Determination of relative seniority of persons holding equivalent posts but drawn from different integration units.

FOR determining the equation of posts the following factors would have to be taken into consideration : -

(A) the nature and duties of a post;

(B) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the Officer holding the post; the extent of territorial; or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;

(C) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the posts; and

(D) The salary of the post.

THE following factors would hav