Case: Jagtar Singh &amp; Others Vs. State of Punjab &amp; Others

already been effected on the lines laid down in the directive of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated October 13, 1962, followed up by the joint seniority list as published on March 1, 1963, the Central Government had no authority to issue the directive so as to affect the list already drawn up or the principles on which it was drawn up. Counsel for the third respondent referred to the decisions in A. J. Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and others, A.I.R. 1965 Guj. 23, and K. C. Gupta and other v. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1969 Punj. & Har. 34, in support of the contention that the State Government had concurrent power to integrate the services of the two two States. In M. A. Jaleel and others v. The State of Mysore and others, A.I.R. 1961 Mys. 210, the High Court of Mysore took the view that the Central Government alone has authority to integrate the services of States on their reorganisation under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. This Court, after noting the conflict of opinion on the point among the High Courts in Union of India and another v. P. K. Roy and others, (1968) 2 S.C.R. 186, left open the question. We do not think that on the facts of this case it is necessary to resolve the conflict, as the State Government had no case that they were not bound by the directive of the Central Government in the matter of the integration of services here. Counsel for the State of Punjab brought to our attention the contents of the return filed by the State in Civil Writ 2896 of 1965 where the Punjab Services Integration Rules, 1957, were challenged as recited in the judgment of the Punjab High Court in K. C. Gupta and others v. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1969 Punj. & Har. 34. There the State of Punjab contended that these rules were made in accordance with the advice of the Central Government and that in applying the Rules the State Government was subject to the directions which the Government of India might issue under S.117 of the Act. Quite apart from this, S.117 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, seems to us to be quite clear. The section reads"117. Power of Central Government to give directions : The Central Government may at any time before or after the appointed day give such directions to any State Government as may appear to it to be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this part and the State Government shall comply with such directions".9. In Dr. N. Desaiah and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, A.I.R. 1968 A.P. 5, it was held that the direction given by the Central Government under S.117 of the States Reorganisation Act was binding on the State Government in the matter of integration of services. See also Roshan Lal Sharma v. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1968 Punj. 47, where the same view was taken. So we held that the directive of the Central Government was binding on the State Government in the matter of integrating the two services and the State of Punjab or the Registrar of Co-operative Societies of that State could not have said that they will not review the promotions made before 12th April, 1962, as the directive of the Central Government required that all promotions after February 27, 1961, should be reviewed.10. The third respondent who complained that he was shown as junior to the appellants in the lists published on 11-3-1966 and 20-3-1970 whereas as a matter of fact he was senior to them never filed any objection or representation to the provisional gradation list issued by the Services Integration Department on 9-3-1964. The explanation given by him for not filling any objection to the list, namely, that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in his communication dated 7-12-64 did not insist upon objections being filed to the list, does not carry conviction as by the communication dated 9-3-1964, the Registrar had required that representations should be filed within one month of the publication of the provisional gradation list. That time had already expired when the Registrar issued the communication dated 7-12-1964. In these circumstances we do not think the High Court was justified in quashing the lists published on 11-3-1966 and 20-3-1970 on the basis of the provisional integrated gradation list published by the Integration Department on 9-3-1964.11. The appellants prayer in their writ petition was for a direction to the State of Punjab and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, respondents 1 and 2, to implement cl. 4 of the directive of the Central Government issued on April 18, 1965. In effect their prayer was that their pay should be fixed at the stage which they would have attained in the time scale of higher posts had they been promoted to those posts on the date set out in cl. 3 of the directive; cl. 3 stated that their seniority should be counted from the date on which their juniors started continuous officiation in the higher posts because of their promotion under provisional gradation lists. As already stated, the High Court no occasion to consider the question whether this prayer could be granted, as it held that the directive of the Central Government had no controlling operation in respect of the integration of the services in question. We see no reason to deny the appellants the benefit cl. 4 of the directive. But we have no material before us to show when the third respondent or the other juniors of the appellants were promoted on the basis of provisional gradation list. We would, in the circumstances, direct the 1st respondent, the State of Punjab, to implement cl. 4 of the directive of the Central Government dated April 18, 1965, after considering the factual position of each of the appellant whether he was qualified for the benefit of the clause.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. We think that the approach of the High Court to the question was totally misconceived. There was no integration of the services by the creation of divisional cadre of junior and senior clerks in the Pepsu area or by the continuance of the divisional pattern in the two integrating units after November 1, 1956. The High Court went wrong in assuming that the decision of the Government to constitute a single cadre of junior and senior clerks in divisional offices as well as in the office of the Registrar ofSocieties was not taken under the Punjab Services Integration Rules, 1957, and under the State Reorganisation Act, but by way of reorganisation of the clerical services of the department as an administrative measure. If this argument is correct, it is difficult to understand why the joint seniority list issued on March 1, 1963, in pursuance of the directive of the Registrar ofSocieties dated October 13, 1962, was passed on to the Services Integration Department. The fact of the matter is that there was no integration by reason of the creation of the divisional cadre of clerks and head clerks in the Pepsu State or by the continuance of the divisional pattern in the two integrating unites after November 1, 1956. The integration of the services in question of the two States was attempted to be effected only by drawing up the joint seniority list issued on March 1, 1963.The third respondent who complained that he was shown as junior to the appellants in the lists published on70 whereas as a matter of fact he was senior to them never filed any objection or representation to the provisional gradation list issued by the Services Integration Department onThe explanation given by him for not filling any objection to the list, namely, that the Registrar ofSocieties in his communication dateddid not insist upon objections being filed to the list, does not carry conviction as by the communication datedthe Registrar had required that representations should be filed within one month of the publication of the provisional gradation list. That time had already expired when the Registrar issued the communication datedIn these circumstances we do not think the High Court was justified in quashing the lists published onThe appellants prayer in their writ petition was for a direction to the State of Punjab and the Registrar ofSocieties, respondents 1 and 2, to implement cl. 4 of the directive of the Central Government issued on April 18, 1965. In effect their prayer was that their pay should be fixed at the stage which they would have attained in the time scale of higher posts had they been promoted to those posts on the date set out in cl. 3 of the directive; cl. 3 stated that their seniority should be counted from the date on which their juniors started continuous officiation in the higher posts because of their promotion under provisional gradation lists. As already stated, the High Court no occasion to consider the question whether this prayer could be granted, as it held that the directive of the Central Government had no controlling operation in respect of the integration of the services in question. We see no reason to deny the appellants the benefit cl. 4 of the directive. But we have no material before us to show when the third respondent or the other juniors of the appellants were promoted on the basis of provisional gradation list. We would, in the circumstances, direct the 1st respondent, the State of Punjab, to implement cl. 4 of the directive of the Central Government dated April 18, 1965, after considering the factual position of each of the appellant whether he was qualified for the benefit of the clause