Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
J.B. Mehta, T.U. Mehta, JJ.
Shri Sumanlal Prabhulal Shukla - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and another - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 164 of 1974
Decided On : 07-05-1976
MANDAMUS - WRIT OF - WHEN ISSUED - INTEGRATION OF SERVICES - EQUATION OF POSTS - ABSORPTION OF SERVICES - SENIORITY - PROMOTION - TRAINING QUALIFICATION - WHETHER NECESSARY - RULES - INTERPRETATION - STATES REORGANISATION ACT, 1956, SEC. 117 - ALLOCATED GOVERNMENT SERVANTS (ABSORPTION, SENIORITY, PAY AND ALLOWANCES) RULES, 1957, RULES 2(B), 4(I), 7(I).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Planning Officer in the erstwhile State of Saurashtra, was absorbed in the Education Department of the new State of Gujarat in a class II post after the integration of the States of Bombay and Saurashtra. He filed a suit challenging his absorption in class II post and obtained a decree in his favour from the High Court. The State of Gujarat passed a resolution treating the post of Planning Officer of the erstwhile State of Saurashtra as an intermediate category between class I and II posts of the former State of Bombay and directing that the seniority of the incumbents of the post should be fixed above all persons absorbed in class II posts as on 1-11-1956. The petitioner retired on 4-8-1975. He filed a Special Civil Application seeking directions against the respondent States to revise the final seniority list as on 1-11-1956 and to show his name at the top of all class II officers of Bombay Education Service (Administrative Branch) and to give promotions to him accordingly. The single Judge dismissed the petition summarily. The petitioner preferred an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the appeal and held that: (1) The petitioner did not require any training qualifications for further promotions from the post of Research Officer and was entitled to all the promotions in the Education Services of the erstwhile State of Bombay as well as the State of Gujarat, in the Administrative Branch, without any insistence on training qualifications; (2) The deemed date of 7th December, 1956, which is given to the petitioner is not proper as it is based on the insistence on training qualifications. Therefore, the proper deemed date is required to be given to the petitioner in accordance with the relevant Rules; (3) The promotions, which the petitioner got in the Gujarat Service from the year 1966 onwards, are found to be proper and the contention of Gujarat Government that they were irregular or illegal, or fortuitous, is rejected; (4) The seniority as well as promotion of the petitioner is required to be freshly adjusted by both the Governments as per the observations made above right from the fresh deemed date which might be given to him. If any of the respondent Governments fails to work out the fresh deemed date within reasonable time, the date of 1st November, 1956 shall be treated as the deemed date of the first promotion of the petitioner in class I Education Services (Adm. Branch) and his subsequent further promotions shall be notionally worked out accordingly; (5) The pay and other emoluments of the petitioner are required to be fixed accordingly and the difference of payment should also be accordingly calculated and made to the petitioner within reasonable time.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner required any training qualifications for further promotions from the post of Research Officer? 2. Whether the deemed date of 7th December, 1956, given to the petitioner is proper? 3. Whether the promotions, which the petitioner got in the Gujarat Service from the year 1966 onwards, are proper? 4. Whether the seniority as well as promotion of the petitioner is required to be freshly adjusted by both the Governments? 5. Whether the pay and other emoluments of the petitioner are required to be fixed accordingly?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioner did not require any training qualifications for further promotions from the post of Research Officer as the Rules framed by the Government of Gujarat for recruitment to the Gujarat Educational Service Class I (Administrative Branch) in the year 1969 do not insist upon training qualifications for promotees. 2. The deemed date of 7th December, 1956, which is given to the petitioner is not proper as it is based on the insistence on training qualifications, which is not required under the relevant Rules. 3. The promotions, which the petitioner got in the Gujarat Service from the year 1966 onwards, are proper as they were given to the petitioner in accordance with the relevant Rules. 4. The seniority as well as promotion of the petitioner is required to be freshly adjusted by both the Governments as per the observations made by the Court right from the fresh deemed date which might be given to him. 5. The pay and other emoluments of the petitioner are required to be fixed accordingly and the difference of payment should also be accordingly calculated and made to the petitioner within reasonable time.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the rule was made absolute in terms stated in para 44 of the judgment. The petitioner was entitled to the costs of the main petition as well as this L.P.A. from both the States. The Respondents-States were directed to give a fresh deemed date of promotion to the petitioner and to work out the notional promotions, which were due to him from 1st November, 1956 to 30th April, 1960 and further from 1st May, 1960 up to the date of his retirement which is 4th August, 1975. The respondents-States were also directed to work out the difference in salary and emoluments which would be due to the petitioner in accordance with these promotions, and to pay the same to the petitioner without any delay.
JUDGMENT :
T.U. Mehta, J.
If ever there was a complete justification for issuing a writ of mandamus, the said justification is furnished by the facts of this case which supplies an outstanding illustration showing how a legitimate grievance of a Government servant can be successfully kept at bay, and lost in the nightmare of Secretariat intricacies, entanglement of red-tape methods, and obduracy of bureaucratic steel-frame.
2. The appellant-petitioner is agitating his grievance as regards his equation, absorption and seniority ever since last about 20 years, but has failed to get any redress at the hands of the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat, even though, in the meanwhile, he has obtained some very specific orders in his favour from this court. Neither through these favourable court orders, nor through some contempt petitions the appellant-petitioner has been successful in getting his grievance redressed till now. In the meanwhile on August 4, 1975 he has retired on superannuation. His claim of seniority and promotion has thus now lost its fevour and what was purely a question or service issue has now become one of money payment.
3. It is in the background of the following facts that this matter arises for our consideration.
4. The appellant, who is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, was confirmed in the erstwhile State of Saurashtra as Planning Officer which was a class I post. He was confirmed in that post some time before the integration of the State of Saurashtra with the erstwhile State of Bombay under the States Reorganisation Act. This integration took place on 1st November, 1956. The facts of the case show that the Directorate of Statistics and Planning in which the petitioner was serving as a Planning Officer in the State of Saurashtra, was directly under the Cabinet and Co-ordination Department which was headed by the Chief Secretary of the Saurashtra State However, there was no separate post of Planning Officer in the State of Bombay and, therefore, for the purpose of equating and absorbing the petitioner's post in the newly formed State, there was no immediate corresponding post available. It is an admitted position that soon after the integration of the States of Bombay and Saurashtra, the petitioner was absorbed in the Education Department of the new State in class II post. Thereafter the State of Bombay was bifurcated and the State of Gujarat was formed with effect from 1-5-1960. The petitioner was continued in class II post even in the Government of Gujarat. The petitioner felt aggrieved at this and, therefore, filed Civil Suit No. 1723/64 against the Government of Gujarat, challenging his absorption in class II post of the Education Department. The petitioner failed in this suit with the result that he approached this court in first Appeal No. 380/67. During the pendency of that appeal, the Government of India in consultation with the Central Advisory Committee, issued the direction to the State of Gujarat to treat the post of the Planning Officers of the ex-Saurashtra State as an intermediate category between class I and If posts in the Education Department of the former State of Bombay. The Central Government also directed the State Government to give seniority to the petitioner above all the persons in class II post of Bombay Education Service. Pursuant to this direction of the Government of India, the Government of Gujarat passed a Resolution to treat the post of a Planning Officer of the erstwhile State of Saurashtra as an intermediate category between class I and II posts of the former State of Bombay. This Resolution is dated 11th May, 1972 and is found at Annexure 'A'. The relevant portion of this resolution is important. The same is as under : -
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
