Case: State Of Himachal Pradesh &amp; Anr Vs. Union Of India &amp; Ors. Etc

3. The appellants in the former State of Punjab wereof Taxation. On 1 April, 1966 the appellants were upgraded from the post ofto Inspectors of Taxation. When the appellants were allocated to Himachal Pradesh on the appointed day on 1 November,1966 they were Inspectors of Taxation. The respondents were Excisein Himachal Pradesh on the appointed day. The respondents were upgraded from the position of Exciseto Inspectors with effect from 1 May, 1969. That upgrading was with the sanction and under the directions of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 (6) ofthe Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 referred to as the Act. On 29 May 1971 the State of Himachal Pradesh by an executive decision changed the date of upgrading of the respondents from 1 May, 1969 to 1 April, 1966. This upgrading was done by the State of Himachal Pradesh without sanction and direction of the Central Government under Section 82 (6) of the Act.

Reasoning:
This contention is utterly unsound. The seniority list has been prepared by giving the employees of Himachal Pradesh, the benefit of the date of upgradation as 1 April, 1966. The Government of India sanctioned the date 1 May, 1969. The State of Himachal Pradesh is not only setting at naught the direction but is giving a retrospective validation to the date of upgradation. That is a matter which changes the conditions of service of the appellants. The appellants are deprived of their continuous period of service. The appellants are deprived of their quota of promotion. The appellants were not heard with regard to equation of posts of Excise Inspectors and Taxation Inspectors. The appellants were not heard with regard to their seniority list.19. The appellants, therefore, rightly contend that the conditions of service applicable to them before the appointed day have been altered to their disadvantage without the previous approval of the Central Government. Again, if the State of Himachal Pradesh wants to equate Taxation Inspectors with Excise Inspectors the approval of the Central Government will be required because the appellants may represent their case of promotion quota under these Rules.20.The High Court correctly held that if the State Government wanted to alter the upgradation of the posts of Himachal Pradeshwith effect from 1 April, 1966, the sanction of the Central Government was to be obtained. The High Court rightly set aside the executive decision changing the date of promotion of Himachal Pradeshfrom 1 May, 1969, to 1 April, 1966 and the seniority lists as well as the four promotions.If the State of Himachal Pradesh wishes to change the date of upgradation of Himachal Pradeshto 1 April, 1966 the State Government cannot do so without sanction of the Central Government under Section 82(6) of the Act. If the State Government wishes to equate the appellants with the Inspectors of Himachal Pradesh the State of Himachal Pradesh will have to follow the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act in that behalf. The date of continuous appointment of the appellants and the respondents in the equated post will also have to be in compliance with the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act.24. All facts and circumstances affecting the service conditions of Inspectors of both the States will have to be placed by the State Government before the Central Government for decision of the Central Government whether it should give approval under Section 823(6) of the Act to upgradation ofof Himachal Pradesh with effect from 1 April, 1966.25. The direction given by the High Court that the State Government shall obtain approval of the Central Government under Section 82 (6) of the Act in regard to the date of promotion or upgradation ofis correct and upheld. The other direction given by the High Court that the Rules for promotion to the post of Excise and Taxation Inspectors shall be finalised after getting the approval of the Central Government is correct and upheld.