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

2. In view of the impending merger of the two State of Punjab and Pepsu with effect from November 1, 1956, it was decided on October 26, 1956, by the Joint Integration Council, that the office of the Deputy Registrars ofSocieties, Pepsu area, will from a separate division on the basis of the pattern obtaining in Punjab. In the erstwhile Punjab State, the staff of the senior and junior clerks in the offices of the Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars including camps clerks to Inspectors andwere placed on divisional cadre in December, 1949, by an order of the Governor of Punjab and there were two such divisions in Punjab, viz., Ambala and Jullundur and the rules applicable to the service were the PunjabSubordinate Service Rules, 1936. The result was that after the appointed day, i.e., November 1, 1956, the staff of junior and senior clerks of each of the three divisions of the composite State of Punjab continued to be organised as a separate cadre and the officers serving in the office of the Registrar ofSocieties formed a different cadre. In the light of certain observations of the Subordinate Judge Jullundur, in the judgment dated August 2, 1957, on the basis of a suit filed by some of the clerks of the office of the Registrar ofSocieties, the Government of Punjab decided:(i) that a joint seniority list must be prepared onbasis instead of divisional basis, in accordance with the Punjab Services Integration Rules, 1957; and(ii) that pending preparation of the joint seniority list, Promotions to the Posts of Inspectors should be provisional.3. On October 13, 1962, the Registrar ofSocieties, Punjab, apparently with the approval of the Government, issued a directive to all gazetted officers in theDepartment with regards to the procedure to be followed for promotion of clerks to the post of assistants/head clerks on the basis ofjoint seniority list. A joint seniority list was drawn up on March 1, 1963. The list was passed on to the Services Integration Department as it involved the integration of the services of theDepartments of the erstwhile State of Punjab and Pepsu. The Integration Department issued a provisional joint seniority list on March 9, 1964, which was circulated to all the members of the staff and representations were invited. After considering the representation received, the final gradation list was drawn up. It was approved by the Central Government and was issued by the Governor of Punjab by the notification dated February 11, 1966. The notification was published in the Punjab Gazette on March 11, 1966. In the meanwhile the Government of India issued a directive dated April 18, 1965, to the Punjab Government Under S.117 of the state Reorganisation Act, 1956. The terms of the directive werePromotions made before 27th February, 1961, on the basis of the provisional gradation lists shall not be disturbed. Provided that the claims of officers for future promotions on the basis of seniority determined in accordance with the principles set out hereafter shall not be prejudiced."2. Promotions made after 27th February, 1961, on the basis of the provisional gradation lists shall be reviewed to the extent necessary to give effect to the claims of officers who are senior in the final gradation lists to the officers who have been promoted."3. The seniority (of an officer who would have been promoted if the final gradation lists had been available on 1st November, 1956) should be counted from the date on which an officer junior to him has started continuous officiation in the higher post because of his promotion under the provisional gradation lists."4. The pay of an officer whose promotion and seniority is determined in accordance with cls. (2) and (3) shall be fixed at a stage which he would have attained in the time scale of the higher post had he been promoted to that post on the date set out in cl. (3);Provided that he shall not be entitled to arrears of pay for the period prior to the date of his actual promotion.Action as aforesaid may be taken without prejudice to the principles of promotion on merit whenever applicable".The final integrated gradation list published on March 11, 1966, showed the ranks of all personnel from clerks to superintendents as onSoon after, a joint seniority list of assistants/head clerks as on March 1, 1956, depicting the position in the position in the promoted rank, was issued by the Government of Punjab on May 20, 1966. The correctness of this list was challenged in C.W. No. 1821 of 1966 before the High Court : the prayer in the writ petition was for an order or direction to implement the directive of the Government of India dated April 18, 1965. On the basis of the concession by the Registrar ofSocieties, Punjab that the seniority will be modified in accordance with final gradation list, the writ petition was disposed of. Thereafter a tentative joint seniority list of head clerks and assistants was circulated for objections. After considering the objections, the final joint seniority list was issued in the write petition.

Court's reasoning:
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