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

1965 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 1

GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Bhagwati, Bakshi, JJ
Patel A. J. v. State of Gujarat
Special Civil Application



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.B. Patel
For the Respondents: Attorney General, K.M. Chhaya, J.R. Nanavaty

The Central Government holds exclusive authority to integrate state services post-reorganization, validating directions given to State Governments for service integration.

Headnote:(A) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Sections 115 and 117 - Integration of services - Dispute arose regarding the equation of posts and seniority between employees from the erstwhile State of Saurashtra and the State of Bombay - Petitioners sought to quash the resolution of the State Government altering equation based on Central Government directives - Court examined the authority of Central and State Governments in service matters post-reorganization - Integration of services was not complete until the Central Government approved the equation of posts - The Central Government retained authority to integrate services and issue directions to State Governments - Resolution passed by the State in compliance with Central Government direction was valid. (Paras 1, 17, 60)

Table of Content
1. arguments regarding the relevance of the states reorganisation act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. discussions on the provisions concerning personnel in reorganised states. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. high level discussions relating to service integration. (Para 6 , 7)
4. processes and instructions related to service personnel integration. (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
5. legal context surrounding the reorganisation of employee positions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. integration and seniority ordering of former service personnel. (Para 15 , 16)
7. arguments regarding the procedural validity of integration. (Para 17 , 18)
8. clarifying the role and authority of central versus state government. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
9. conclusive statements about the central government's powers. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
10. final judgment clarifying state-federal relationship on integration. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)

1. (with him Bakshi, J.) This Special civil application raises important' questions of law relating to the construction of some of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 . There has been a divergence of opinion between the State Government on the one hand and the Central Government on the other, and divergent views have been held at different times. The petitioners are persons employed in the subordinate Secretariat service of the Government of' the State of Gujarat. Prior to the reorganisation Act of the State of Bombay on 1st November 1956, they were employed in the subordinate secretariat service of the existing State of Bombay. They have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to restrain the State of Gujarat, its agents and servants from implementing the resolution dated 1st April 1960, passed by the Government of the former State of Bombay whereunder an alteration had been made in the previous resolution dated 25th October 1957 passed by the Government of Bombay in connection with the equation of pests for the purpose of integrating the services of various personnel allotted to the State of Bombay on the reorganisation of the State of Bombay on 1st November 1956. They have also prayed for a declaration that the revised seniority list prepared in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution of 1st April 1960 was inoperative or that the same be quashed. They have also prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued so that the seniority as determined under the resolution of the Government of Bombay, dated 25th October 1957 may not be disturbed. The first respondent to the petition is the State of Gujarat. Respondents 2 to 141 are persons in the subordinate secretariat service of the State of Gujarat who were employed in the subordinate secretariat service of the State of Saurashtra prior to the reorganisation of the State of Bombay on 1st November 1956. As the questions involved in the petition related to the construction of the provisions of the , and the powers of the Central Government under same of its provisions, notice was given to the Attorney General who has intervened and addressed the Court and produced various documents relevant to the matter which have been tendered in evidence on behalf of respondents 4 to 141.

2. The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 , came into force on 31st August 1956. By reason of the provisions contained in the said Act, there were certain territories added to the State of Andhra and to the State of Madras. Under the provisions therein contained, several new Part A States were brought into existence, namely, the State of Kerala, the State of Mysore, the State of Bombay, the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Rajasthan and the State of Punjab. Under the provisions of the said Act, a new centrally administrative Part C State known as the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands was also brought into being. We are in the present petition concerned with the new Part A State of Bombay brought into being by virtue of the provi


















































































































































































































































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