Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, JJ.
Jai Prakash Chand And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another - Respondents
Writ - A No. 3770 of 2023 connected with Writ - A No. 3769 of 2023
Decided On : 04-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Challenge to the Employee of Entertainment Tax Department (Service Cadres of Officers, Inspectors and Other Employees) in the related cadres of Commercial Tax Department, Uttar Pradesh Merger Rules, 2022 - Petitioners claim promotions post-merger from Entertainment Tax Department to Commercial Tax Department, asserting the Rules are unconstitutional and arbitrary. (Paras 2, 11, 48)
(B) Policy Decisions - The court emphasized the principle that policy decisions of the government should not be interfered with unless they violate fundamental rights or statutory provisions. (Paras 49, 50)
(C) Seniority and Promotion - The court ruled that the petitioners' placements under the new Rules did not violate Articles 14, 16, and 21, reaffirming that chances of promotion are not a condition of service. (Paras 47, 56)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, employees of the Entertainment Tax Department, sought to challenge the Merger Rules, 2022, which they claimed unjustly classified them and denied their rightful promotions based on their prior service. (Paras 1-4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioners' claims, stating that the Merger Rules did not violate constitutional provisions and upheld the policy decision of the State Government. (Paras 48, 56)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Merger Rules were unconstitutional and whether the placement of petitioners was discriminatory. (Paras 11, 48)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Merger Rules were a valid exercise of policy decision-making by the State and did not infringe upon the petitioners' fundamental rights. (Paras 48, 56)
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.
(1) Heard Sri Apoorva Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Akash Sinha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents in both the writ petitions.
(2) In the aforesaid two writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for declaring the Employee of Entertainment Tax Department (Service Cadres of Officers, Inspectors and Other Employees) in the related cadres of Commercial Tax Department, Uttar Pradesh Merger Rules, 2022 [in short, referred to as ‘Rules, 2022’] ultra vires to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Besides this, the petitioners of Writ-A No. 3770 of 2023 working on the post of Entertainment Tax Officer have claimed promotion on the post of Assistant Commissioner, whereas the petitioners of Writ-A No. 3769 of 2023 working on the post of Assistant Commissioner have claimed promotion on the post of Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, they are being taken up together and decided by a common order.
(3) The grievance raised in the aforesaid two writ petitions is that on enforcement of The U.P. Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, the service benefits which had accrued to the petitioners in the Entertainment and Betting Tax Department are liable to be granted in G.S.T. department on merger and they be promoted on the next higher post as and when the promotion falls due in the G.S.T. department.
(4) The facts briefly stated are as follows:-
(5) All the petitioners were previously governed under U.P.Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 [briefly, it is stated as ‘Entertainment Tax Act’] and they joined their services in the said Department during the period 1996-1997 and until 2017, they were promoted to the next higher level posts.
(6) On 01.07.2017, The U.P. Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 [briefly, referred to as ‘GST Act’] was promulgated and came into force with immediate effect. By virtue of the provisions of Section 174 of the GST Act, the Entertainment Tax Act was repealed alongwith some other Acts, therefore, the need for re-organization and merger of the officers/employees of Entertainment Tax Department on compatible posts in G.S.T. department arose.
(7) Taking a considerate view to protect the services of the employees of the Entertainment and Betting Tax Department, the State Government took a policy decision to merge the employees of the Entertainment and Betting Tax Department against the posts of Equivalent Pay Matrix available in the Commercial Tax Department.
(8) After much deliberations, the State Government, acting upon the recommendations dated 23.05.2017 of the Committee headed by the Additional Commissioner, Entertainment and Betting Tax Department, issued a notification dated 24.04.2018 whereby the employees of the Entertainment and Betting Tax Department were merged into the available equivalent posts in the Commercial Tax Department and while abolishing the said department, all the rights and duties of the Entertainment and Betting Tax Commissioner were vested in the Commissioner, Commercial Tax.
(9) Thereafter, on 12.07.2018, 31.12.2018, 18.12.2019, 22.10.2019 and 22.09.2020, the State Government directed that until amalgamation of Service Rules are made in respect of all the employees, promotions against the existing vacancies in the Entertainment Tax Department shall be made from amongst the Officers of Entertainment Tax Department in terms of the existing Service Rules of the Entertainment and Betting Tax Department.
(10) The State Government in purported exercise of the power under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India has thereafter framed the “Employee of Entertainment Tax Department (Service Cadres of Officers, Inspectors and Other Employees) in the related cadres of Commercial Tax Department, Uttar Pradesh Merger Rules, 2022” which were made effective from 21.07.2022.
(11) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned Rules, 2022 are unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional as much as they crea
The court upheld the constitutionality of the Merger Rules, 2022, emphasizing that policy decisions should not be interfered with unless they violate fundamental rights or statutory provisions.
The court affirmed the validity of the merger of Senior Supply Inspectors with Area Rationing Officers effective from 30.06.2011, ruling that executive orders cannot override statutory rules.
Point of Law : While enacting the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, 1861 itself delegated the power to the statutory authorities to fix the eligibility including the age etc. and statutory authorit....
Eligibility for promotion and higher grade scales must include all prior service, irrespective of department transfers, highlighting the unconstitutionality of arbitrary restrictions on seniority and....
The court upheld that differential treatment in service absorption timelines does not violate constitutional rights as long as prior benefits remain intact.
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
