The Central Government has certain controlling, supervisory, concurrent, and overriding powers in regard to integration, which do not wipe out the State Government's powers under Entry 41 of List II. The Central Government's power under Art.4 read with Art.73 of the Constitution and S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act supersedes the State Government's powers in the matter of integration of services.

Headnote:
integration - Central Government's power in the matter of integration of services - States Reorganisation Act 1956, Art.4, 73, 162, 245, 246, 309 - The judgment discusses the nature of the power of integration exercised by the Central Government in the matter of integration of services in the States. It interprets the provisions of the Constitution and the States Reorganisation Act, emphasizing the supremacy of Parliament's powers and the control vested in the Central Government. The court rejects the extreme contention that the power of integration belongs exclusively to the States and concludes that the Central Government has certain controlling, supervisory, concurrent, and overriding powers in regard to integration, which do not wipe out the State Government's powers under Entry 41 of List II, and that these latter powers have to be exercised in subordination to those of the Central Government.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed Municipal Commissioner in the Travancore State in the year 1945 for a term of three years, renewed in 1948, and again in 1951, for a further term of three years on each occasion. By the time of the last renewal, the Travancore-Cochin State had been formed by the integration of the States of Travancore and Cochin. The petitioner was confirmed in the post of Commissioner, Corporation of Trivandrum with effect from 25th April 1956. The reorganisation of States took place on 1st November 1956, and certain Madras personnel were allotted and stood transferred to the Kerala State. The cadre strength of Municipal Commissioners in the Kerala State as on 1st November 1956 was fixed at 27, of which one was to be in the I Grade on Rs. 400-600. The petitioner's post was equated with that of the 1st Grade Municipal Commissioner Madras, held by other individuals, and since seniority was to be determined by length of continuous service in the equated posts, the other individuals who had longer continuous service got seniority over the petitioner. The petitioner filed a representation against the equation of posts, which was rejected after due consideration by the Central Government's order.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition with costs, finding that the petitioner's representation against the equation of posts was duly considered and rejected by the Central Government after due consideration, and there was no infringement of the principles of natural justice. The court also noted that the petitioner's efforts to challenge the equation of posts came with ill grace, as he had suppressed his representation against the equation of posts and the adverse order thereon. The court also found no substance in the petitioner's complaint against the decision of the Central Government.
Issues: The issues before the court included the nature of the power of integration exercised by the Central Government, the violation of the principles of natural justice in exercising the power, and the challenge against the equation of posts made by the Central Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of integration does not belong exclusively to the States and that the Central Government has certain controlling, supervisory, concurrent, and overriding powers in regard to integration, which do not wipe out the State Government's powers under Entry 41 of List II. The court also found that the petitioner's representation against the equation of posts was duly considered and rejected by the Central Government after due consideration, and there was no infringement of the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs, and the court concurred with the decision of the Central Government in rejecting the petitioner's representation against the equation of posts.

Judgment :-

1. This writ petition has been ordered to be placed before a Full Bench as it raises an important question as to the nature of the power exercised by the Central Government in the matter of integration of services in the States. In M. A. Faleel v. State of Mysore AIR. 1961 Mysore 210 a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court took the view that the power of the Central Government in the matter of integration of service was an exclusive original power. There were observations in a different strain made by one of us (Raman Nayar, J.) in Kunhikrishnan Nambiar v. State of Kerala 1964 KLT 704. In this latter case, the Mysore decision was not noticed, nor were provisions of Art.4 of the Constitution. In view of all this our learned brother Mathew, J. felt that the question should be decided by a Full Bench.

2. The petitioner was appointed Municipal Commissioner in the Travancore State in the year 1945 for a term of three years, renewed in 1948, and again in 1951, for a further term of three years on each occasion. By the time of the last renewal the Travancore-Cochin State had been formed by the integration of the States of Travancore and Cochin. There were no rules governing the appointment of Municipal Commissioners in the Travancore State. The Travancore-Cochin Government framed rules, dated 8th June 1953 relating to the conditions of services of Municipal Commissioners. Rule I constituted a cadre of Municipal Commissioners consisting of 25 Officers divided into five grades, the I Grade on a scale of pay of Rs. 350-20-450 and the H Grade on a scale of pay of Rs. 275-10-325. It is unnecessary to notice the scales of the remaining grades. R.2 provided that ordinarily a I Grade Officer should be posted as Commissioner of the Corporation of Trivandrum and Officers on higher scales of pay as Commissioners of Municipalities having larger revenue receipts. R.3 provided that the Municipal Commissioners shall be in service of the Government, shall belong to a separate cadre, and shall not be ordinarily entitled transfer or to inter-changeability with other services under. the Government. R.5 provided for making appointments by direct recruitment and by promotion or transfer of persons already in Municipal Service, and further provided that the then Municipal Commissioners (like the petitioner) recruited to the cadre otherwise from Government service, may be treated to be substantive in their respective posts from the dates of their appointments as such. According to R.4 appointment to the cadre of Municipal Commissioners shall ordinarily be in the last grade, promotion to the higher posts being made from the next lower grade on considerations of past records and not merely on seniority. The petitioner was selected for appointment to the I Grade on 25th April 1956 and posted as Commissioner of the Corporation of Trivandrum, for a period of one year. The Trivandrum City Municipal Act specifies the post of the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation of Trivandrum as a tenure post. The salary scale of I Grade Municipal Commissioners in the Travancore-Cochin area was revised on 23rd November 1956 (after the reorganisation of States) with effect from 1st April 1955 fixing the salary scale of I Grade Commissioner as Rs. 450-600. The necessary legislative amendments to the Trivandrum City Municipal Act and the District Municipalities

Act, removing the provision imposing a ceiling on the salary of Municipal Commissioners were passed only on 30th October 1956 and the revised scale was implemented from 23rd November 1956, though with effect from 1st April 1955. The petitioner was confirmed in the post of Commissioner, Corporation of Trivandrum with effect from 25th April 1956 by Ext. P-8 order, dated 12th August 1960. Ext. P-9 G. O. No. 1837/ LA., dated 27th December 1955 of the Government of Madras will show the constitution of two separate services for Municipal Commissioners, viz., the Madras Municipal Commissioners' Services, and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1969 Supreme(Ker) 42

Cases Referred (2)