Case: State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Rameshwar Prasad (Deceased - By L.Rs.) and Others

are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kanahyalal Pandits case (supra) decided on November 17, 1964 was not correctly decided. The High Court in the instant case had based its order mainly on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh Court in Kanahyalal Pandits case (supra) which being incorrectly decided, the judgment of the High Court in this case must be quashed on this ground alone, and the representation filed by the respondent long after the expiry of the time mentioned in the Gazette publishing the provisional gradation list would have to be rejected as belated.9. Even on merits a cursory glance of the principles and the formula formulated by the Government in preparing the gradation list would reveal that no injustice or prejudice was caused to the respondent. In paragraph - 3 of the counter-affidavit by the appellant it has been averred as follows :"It is further submitted that the inter se seniority in Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh units had become final after taking into consideration the service rendered in the princely States and cannot now be challenged. After the seniority in the units of Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh was finally determined, the posts of Assistant Sales Tax Officers of Madhya Bharat and Sales Tax Inspector including Assistant District Excise and Sales Tax Officer of Vindhya Pradesh region. According to the principles adopted for determining the seniority, the length of continuous service on equated post was considered. The seniority of a person is determined with reference to a particular date allotted to him for this purpose. When once the seniority in the integrating units was determined in this manner by the Governments of those units, it is submitted that the seniority of the incumbents from the units of Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh could not be disturbed after the reorganisation of States under S.115 of that Act to the detriment of the incumbents."10. It has thus been explained by the appellants that as the Sales Tax Department in the integrating States of Madhya Pradesh was not the persons absorbed in the Department brought with them the seniority already assigned to them. It was also pointed out in the counter-affidavit that in these circumstances it cannot be said that as the Sales Tax Department came into existence in 1950 in Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh Regions, the personnel of these regions ipso facto become junior to those in Mahakoshal region where the Act had come into force in 1947. We fully agree with the explanation given by the appellants in the counter-affidavit as the same appears to be reasonable and convincing, and seeks to chalk out an objective formula so that the least prejudice is caused to the employees concern. It is manifest that the services rendered in the erstwhile princely States by the Officers who were put above the respondent were taken into account in the equated posts. Thus the equation of the posts was in conformity with the principles laid down in S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act and was done in consultation with the Advisory Committee and was finally approved by the Central Government. To accept the prayer of the respondent would be to set at naught the services rendered by the officers who were put above the respondent in the erstwhile princely State in grades which were more or less similar to the one held by the respondent. In these circumstances we find ourselves the view taken by the High Court.11. In Union of India and another v. P. K. Roy and others, [1970-I L.L.J. 633], a similar argument made by some of the employees coming from erstwhile princely States was repelled and this Court observed as follows :"In our opinion, the procedure adopted in this case does not contracted in this case does not contravene the provisions of S.115(5) of the said Act, because it was the Central Government which laid down the principles for integration, it was the Central Government which considered the representations and passed final orders and both the preliminary and final gradation lists were prepared and published by the State Government under the direction and with the sanction of the preliminary and final gradation lists were prepared and published by the State Government under the direction and with the sanction of the Central Government."12. Similarly in N. Subba Rao etc. v. Union of India and others, (1973) 1 S.C.R. 945 this court laid down that under S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act two requirements were necessary - that there should be a division and integration of the services among the new States; and (ii) that a fair and equitable treatment should be ensured to all persons affected by the integration of the services among the new States; and (ii) that a fair and equitable treatment should be ensured to all persons affected by the integration. In that case also the conference of the Chief Secretaries had preceded the drawing up of the provisional gradation list formulating four principles, namely, (i) the nature and duties of a post; (ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officers holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for the two posts, and (iv) the salary of the post. These principles were approved by the Court in that case.13. In the instant case also the appellants stated in their counter-affidavit that the principles mentioned above were duly taken into consideration and in addition to this the equated grades held by the respondent and the other officers were also taken into consideration in order to fix the seniority of the respondent.14. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the Government had prepared the final gradation list after an objective and thorough consideration of the various aspects of the career of the employees and the principles which governed the list were wholly in consonance with the provisions of S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]7. The High Court appears to have quashed a part of the gradation list mainly on two grounds. In the first place it held, following the decision of the High Court in Kanahyalal Pandits case that as the final gradation list was legally erroneous. Secondly, it was held by the High Court that the contention of the respondent that the services rendered by the other five officers in Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh ought not to have been considered was valid and should have been given effect to by the Government in preparing the final gradation list. We are satisfied after perusal of the materials that the first ground alone the order of preparing a tentative or provisional gradation list was to give an opportunity to the officers whose seniority was determined in the list to make their representation within a month from the date of the publication of the provisional gradation list, then his representation should have been rejected outright. The Madhya Pradesh High Court was in error in taking the view that the employee concerned should have waited for filing his representation until the final gradation list was published.The aforesaid view taken by the High Court is not at all intelligible. In fact the purport of S. 115(5)(b) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was that there should be a fair and equitable treatment of all persons affected by the provisions of that section. This could only be done if before a final gradation list was prepared the officers were given an opportunity to acquaint the Government with their respective points of view. It was indeed a strange view to take that the provisional gradation list was absolutely of no consequence and after the said list was finalised and the time for filling representation expired, then alone the employees concerned should have been asked to file their representations. This is really putting the cart before the horse. Once the list was finalised, it would be difficult for the Government to review its orders which would lead to serious complications and dislocation to the service structure of the State. It appears to us from a perusal of the various clauses of S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act that the statute contemplated three stages for determining the seniority of the officers - (i) the formation of Advisory Committees and determination of principles on the basis of which the seniority was to be determined; (ii) the preparation of a provisional gradation list so as to give an opportunity to the employees concerned to file their objections; and (iii) the publication of the final gradation list after consideration of the objections filed by the employees concerned and taking an overall view of the matter. In these circumstances, therefore, the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the representation filed by the respondent was premature is legally erroneous and we are unable to agree with the same. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kanahyalal Pandits case (supra) decided on November 17, 1964 was not correctly decided. The High Court in the instant case had based its order mainly on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh Court in Kanahyalal Pandits case (supra) which being incorrectly decided, the judgment of the High Court in this case must be quashed on this ground alone, and the representation filed by the respondent long after the expiry of the time mentioned in the Gazette publishing the provisional gradation list would have to be rejected as belated.It has thus been explained by the appellants that as the Sales Tax Department in the integrating States of Madhya Pradesh was not the persons absorbed in the Department brought with them the seniority already assigned to them. It was also pointed out in thet in these circumstances it cannot be said that as the Sales Tax Department came into existence in 1950 in Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh Regions, the personnel of these regions ipso facto become junior to those in Mahakoshal region where the Act had come into force in 1947.We fully agree with the explanation given by the appellants in the counter-affidavit as the same appears to be reasonable and convincing, and seeks to chalk out an objective formula so that the least prejudice is caused to the employees concern. It is manifest that the services rendered in the erstwhile princely States by the Officers who were put above the respondent were taken into account in the equated posts. Thus the equation of the posts was in conformity with the principles laid down in S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act and was done in consultation with the Advisory Committee and was finally approved by the Central Government. To accept the prayer of the respondent would be to set at naught the services rendered by the officers who were put above the respondent in the erstwhile princely State in grades which were more or less similar to the one held by the respondent. In these circumstances we find ourselves the view taken by the High Court.In the instant case also the appellants stated in their counter-affidavit that the principles mentioned above were duly taken into consideration and in addition to this the equated grades held by the respondent and the other officers were also taken into consideration in order to fix the seniority of the respondent.14. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the Government had prepared the final gradation list after an objective and thorough consideration of the various aspects of the career of the employees and the principles which governed the list were wholly in consonance with the provisions of S.115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.