AMMINI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner entered service in the Travancore-Cochin State as a Lower Division Clerk in 1951; was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk,and joined duty as such in February 1961; and was promoted as an Assistant Sales Tax Officer and joined as such on 27-4-1964. Consequent on the retrenchment of 35 posts of Sales Tax Inspectors, the petitioner was one of those ordered to be reverted by proceedings of the board of Revenue (2nd respondent) dated 13-8-1965, a copy of which has been filed as Ex. P. 3. According to the petitioner, this order of reversion could have been avoided if the State had integrated the services of the Upper division Clerks and Lower Division Clerks in the Sales Tax Department of this state, and if the Travancore-Cochin wing of this Department, to which the petitioner belongs, had been spared the discriminatory treatment meted out to it, by the State. THE petitioner accordingly prays for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to integrate the Upper Division Clerks and Lower Divisions clerks in the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Departments of the State, and for suitable directions restraining the respondents from continuing the discriminatory treatment meted out to the said Clerks of the Malabar area, vis-a-vis the corresponding staff of the Travancore-Cochin area.

(2.) THE complaint is that vacancies in the posts of Upper division Clerks in the Malabar area are filled up by the Malabar personnel alone, with the result that almost all Lower Division Clerks in the Malabar area have got promoted as Upper Division Clerks; and length of continuous service in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks obtained by such unfair promotions would place them in an advantageous position over the Travancore-Cochin personnel in the matter of promotion to the next highest cadre of the Assistant sales Tax Officers, Sales Tax Inspectors, and Agricultural Income Tax inspectors. In Para. 3 of her affidavit, the petitioner alleged that there were 101 Lower Division Clerks in the Malabar area, of which one was an Attender and all of them had in course of time got promoted as Assistant Sales Tax Officers. This allegation is denied in Para. 7 of the counter affidavit of the State, where the correct position, with particulars, is disclosed. O. P. No. 3243 of 1961 was filed by one of the Travancore-Cochin personnel for a writ of mandamus to the State to take steps to integrate the Lower Division and Upper Division clerks in Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Departments of the State. THE learned Judge who heard the O. P. (Govindan Nair, J.) read an assurance in para. 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the State that steps are being taken for the purpose, and directed that these should be expedited. A copy of the judgment in that O. P, is Ex. P. 2.

(3.) I cannot, on the language of the section, read a statutory obligation to integrate, which can be compelled by mandamus. Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the expression 'may' in S. 115 (5) must be understood as 'must or 'shall' as the exercise of the power is coupled with certain benefits conferred upon the members of the service sought to be integrated. But, as would appear to be recognised by the section itself, integration of service is not always an unmixed advantage and the proviso to section115 (7) therefore provides that the conditions of service prior to 1-11-1956 shall not be varied to the disadvantage of a person except with the previous approval of the Central Government. I cannot therefore regard the duty to integrate the services, as in all cases, mandatory. Assuming it is, the duty is laid on the Central Government, which is not a party to this writ petition. The prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the State, to integrate the services concerned must, for these reasons fail.