MADAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined service in the Police Department in the United Punjab as a constable on 24th April, 1947. Subsequently under the orders of the Deputy Inspector General of Police Ambala Range, he was absorbed as an executive clerk (Accounts Branch) in the Police Department. He was appointed as an Accountant on 16th June, 1956 on selection by the Subordinate Service Selection Board by the Director, Health Services, Punjab, in the grade of Rs. 80-5-110/5-150. Under Rule 4.10 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules the Governor of the Punjab directed that from 16th June, 1956 his pay should be fixed at Rs. 80/- the scale of Rs. 60-4-80/5-120/5-175. On 16th December, 1958 a tentative joint seniority list of the clerical staff of the Medical Institutions was circulated. In this list the petitioner's name appeared at serial No. 87 among the category of clerks. On 10th August, 1959 he submitted a representation praying that his seniority should be fixed among the parent State. In April 1962 the Punjab Government acceded to his prayer. Accordingly his seniority was fixed among the Accountants and he was placed below Shri Bhim Sain Ahuja. It appears that while implementing the decision of the Government respondent No. 4, the Director of Health Service, wrongly showed three or four persons as senior to the petitioner. The petitioner made another representation and by means of a memorandum dated 9th June, 1963 the Punjab Government made an order that the mistake made by the Department should be rectified and he should be given his original seniority above the said four officials. The representations of these other officials against the fixation of the petitioners seniority were rejected. Finally, his name was placed at serial No. 19 in the provisional joint seniority list. He was promoted on 24th August, 1962 in the senior scale of Rs. 106-6-160/8-200 and was later on appointed as Head Clerk in the scale of Rs. 116-6-180/10-250 in March, 1964. The Integration Department of the Punjab Government list of the clerical staff of one stood on 1st November, 1956. The name of the petitioner shown at serial No. 19 on this list. All these facts are not disputed.

(2.) It appears that on certain representations received from four clerks (three from erstwhile State of Punjab and one from the erstwhile State of Pepsu) the Government of India altered the joint seniority list by placing the petitioner's name at serial No. 87 instead of No. 19. This was done, as has been stated in paragraph 3 of the return filed by respondent No. 2, after consideration by the State Advisory Committee appointed by the Government of India under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and after the recommendations made by that Committee to the Central Government. The reason which has been given for assigning serial No. 87 to the petitioner in the final joint seniority list, is that his post was equated to that of a clerk on the ground that on 31st October, 1956 he was in the scale of Rs. 80-150 which was found lower than that of unified scale of clerks (Rs. 60-175). This was done under Section 115(5) of the States Reorganisation Act which confers powers on the Government of India to integrate such services.

(3.) Mr. K.P. Bhandari for the petitioner has raised two main contentions before me. The first is that the provisions of Rule 16 of the Punjab Services Integration Rules, 1957 lay down that inter se seniority of any employee in the parent State shall not be disturbed in determining his seniority in the State of Punjab under the rules. According to the submission which has been made, the petitioner had been appointed as Accountant in the parent State before integration of the erstwhile States of Pepsu and Punjab which came into force with effect from 1st November, 1956. Inter-se seniority in the parent State, as if obtained before the date of integration, could not have been disturbed under Rule 16 of the aforesaid rules which have been promulgated by the Governor of Punjab under Article 309 of the Constitution. Moreover, it is said, it was for the Punjab Government which was the parent State so far as the petitioner was concerned to determine his position in the seniority list with reference to his appointment with effect from 16th June, 1956. The Central Government, therefore, had no power or authority under Section 115(5). The second contention that has been canvassed is that the order made by the Central Government was made without any notice to the petitioner for affording him an opportunity of being heard. It is claimed that if any such opportunity had been afforded, the petitioner would have raised the first contention and challenged the authority and the jurisdiction of the Government of India to disturb his seniority in view of the provisions of Rule 16 of the 1957 rules. According to the order conveyed to the petitioner, the decision of the Government of India had been given on the basis of representations of four clerks, namely Inder Singh, Suraj Parkash, Krishan Kumar and Raj Kumar Kundra. The petitioner was never informed of the contents of their representations either by the Central Government or by the State Advisory Committee. Since the functions which are exercised by these authorities are of a quasi-judicial nature it was obligatory on them to afford the petitioner some opportunity of explaining his position or replying to the representations made by the said four clerks. In the return of respondent No. 2, the State of Punjab, all that has been said in reply to the second contention is that the petitioner did not apply for being given a personal hearing by the State Advisory Committee or the Government of India at the time representations against the provisional joint seniority list were considered nor had he filed any review petition or a counter-representation against the decision placing him at serial No. 87 in the final joint seniority list.