BALKRISHNA DWARKADAS VYAS Vs. GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL Civil Applications Nos. 468 and 683 of 1962 raise common questions of law and facts and they can be disposed of by one judgment. The learned advocates for the parties have also consented to both the petitions being dealt with by a common judgment. We shall however state some special facts of the respective petitions where they need a separate handling. In both the petitions, the challenge is directed against circular annexure D read with circular annexure C in Special Civil Application No. 486 of 1962. The said circulars are annexures C and D, respectively, in Special Civil Application No. 683 of 1962 and in this judgment, reference will be made hereafter to these circulars as annexure D read with annexure C. These circulars were issued by the Commissioner of Gujarat Housing Board consequent upon certain resolution mentioned in the said circulars of the Gujarat Housing Board. By the said circulars, rules were circulated amongst the employees whereby the seniority list of its employees together with certain principles of classification, promotion and other conditions of recruitment were finalized and put into effect.

(2.) THE petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 486 of 1962 joined service under the Bombay Housing Board before bifurcation of the State of Bombay as a junior clerk in 1950 and at the date of the petition, he was holding the post of a senior rent collector in the scale of Rs. 92 - 8 - 140 under the Gujarat Housing Board. Petitioners 1 to 15 of Special Civil Application No. 683 of 1962 held the posts of junior rent collectors and petitioners 16 to 18 held the posts of supervising rent collectors under the Gujarat Housing Board. These petitioners were also employees of the Bombay Housing Board before bifurcation. The posts held by the petitioners belonged to a group of posts which was known as non-clerical-cum-non-technical posts. In both the petitions, opponent 1 is the Gujarat Housing Board and opponent 2 is the Housing Commissioner of the said Board. The petitioners in both the petitions were allowed to amend their respective petitions in March 1967 and the opponents were given opportunities to reply to the amended petitions. The petitioners' case in both the petitions as they stand amended may be stated.

(3.) THE staff of the Bombay Housing Board was not divided into any exclusive groups and under the terms and conditions of service, the group of clerical posts was not considered as separate or exclusive to the group of posts pertaining to rent collection, and vice versa. Then again, employees in the clerical group were eligible for promotion to posts in the group pertaining to rent collection and vice versa. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 486 relied upon an order of the Bombay Housing Board dated 13 February, 1953 in support of his above-stated case about the conditions of service and more particularly in respect of the post of a senior rent collector and that of a senior clerk to claim that they were treated as interchangeable and the pay-scale was also the same. The said order, however, cannot be and is not relied upon by the petitioners of the second petition. It is not necessary for us to state the details of this order. Then came the bifurcation of the State of Bombay in 1960 and under the relevant provisions of law, the two regional boards, the Gujarat Housing Board and the Maharashtra Housing Board came into being and the services of all the petitioners were allocated to the Gujarat Housing Board. The provisions under which the two regional boards were established also laid down that the terms and conditions of such servants allocated to the two respective housing boards shall not, unless altered by any authority designated, be less favourable than those admissible to them while in the service of the Bombay housing Board. The petitioners claim that when they joined the service of the Bombay Housing Board, the conditions of their service included amongst other things, the right of being considered for promotion to the various higher posts in the clerical group right up to the senior superintendent. According to the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 486 of 1962, under S. 67 (c) of the Bombay Housing Board Act, the Bombay Housing Boards had made regulations relating to remuneration and conditions of service of the employees and seniority lists were prepared and promotions to higher posts in the clerical group of persons holding posts in rent collecting group were made in accordance with the seniority as fixed in the lists. The petitioner appears to have initially relied on the regulations in supports of his claim. It may, however, be mentioned that the opponents have produced the regulations so made and they particularly rely upon Regn. 3 to meet the case of all the petitioners. The said regulation is as under :