K C GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE validity and constitutionality of the Punjab Service Integration Rules, 1957, framed by the Governor of Punjab, under Article 309 of the Constitution has bee impugned by K. C. Gupta and two others, the petitioners in this case.

(2.) ALL the three petitioners joined the service of the erstwhile Patiala and East punjab States Union (hereinafter referred to as Pepsu in 1956, as District panchayat Officers. They were confirmed as such in their respective posts in october, 1956, with the concurrence of the Public Service Commission. The petitioners are all Graduates. The posts held by the petitioners in PEPSU were gazetted and were in the pay scale of Rupee 250-15-400. The District Panchayat officers in the erstwhile State of Punjab (prior to its reorganisation in 1956) were non-gazetted and were in the time-scale of Rs. 170-350. Consequent on the merger of PEPSU with the then State of Punjab in accordance with the provisions of the States. Reorganisation Act (37 of 1956) (hereinafter called the Act) the petitioners became the employees of the new State of Punjab with effect from the 1st of November, 1956. It is not disputed that according to the provisions of the act, the Central Government is constituted as the authority for the integration of the employees of the erstwhile State of PEPSU with the employees of the State of punjab. The Punjab Integration Rules 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Integration rules), framed by the Governor of Punjab, under Article 309 of the Constitution of india, were notified on July 1, 1957, and published in the official gazetted of that date Part IV of the said Rules provided machinery for the equation of service and part VI contained rules for determination of inter se seniority between the employees of the Punjab and PEPSU States. The gazetted posts of District panchayat Officers of the erstwhile Pepsu States were equated with the non-gazetted posts of District Panchayat Officers of District Panchayat Officers of the erstwhile Punjab State. By counting the length of service in the equated cadre, 21 persons were placed above the petitioners and they were placed at Nos. 22 to 24 in the provisional joint seniority list. Respondents Nos. 3 to 13 were placed above them. The remaining persons who had been placed above the petitioners have not been imploded as they are stated to have retired or left the Department concerned before the filing of the petition. Annexure 'a-1' to the writ petition is the revised joint seniority list of the employees of the Panchayat Department (filed staff ). Separate representations dated May 3, 1957, were submitted by the petitioners (copy of the representation of Bhupinder Singh petitioner No. 3 being Annexure 'b' to the writ petition) to the director of Panchayats, Punjab against the above-said equation as well as against the fixing of their seniority as assigned to them. The seniority list was finalized and is claimed by the respondents to have been circulated with a communication, dated April 19, 1958, by the Director of Panchayats, Punjab. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 submitted appeals against the positions assigned to them in the list. Their appeals were considered by the State Advisory Committee, Later on a joint representation by all the three petitioners and some other persons was submitted praying for their representations being considered by the Central Advisory committee. The matter was then placed with the Government of India for the consideration of the case of the petitioners by the Central Committee. The representations were rejected and the petitioners were informed of the same by letter, dated August 26, 1959, form the Secretary to the Punjab Government in the Integration Department (copy f the communication is Annexure 'c' to the writ petition), With the said letter, a copy of the decision of the Central Government was enclosed. According to the said order, the Government of India was satisfied that the posts held by the petitioners in PEPSU had been correctly equated and that the representations of the petitioners in had no force and had, therefore, been rejected. Thereafter the petitioners submitted further representations questioning the validity of the previous order, and complaining against the same. By letter, dated April 14, 1961 (Annexure 'f'), the Deputy Secretary to the Punjab government informed the Director of Panchayats, Punjab, that the representations of the petitioners, against their equation with non-gazetted District Panchayat officers in Punjab, had been reconsidered by the Government of India on the advice of the Central Advisory Committee for gazetted officers. A copy of the fresh decision taken by the Central Government was enclosed with the said communication. According to that decision, the Central Government, having regard to the broad similarity in the jurisdiction, functions and duties attached to the posts in question, approved the equation of the gazetted posts of districts Panchayat Officers, Pepsu, with the non-gazetted posts of District panchayat Officers in Punjab. It was further held in that decision that Mohinder singh (who has since left the Department), who had held non-gazetted post of educational and Propaganda Officer in Pepsu could not be shown in the joint seniority list above the Officers of the same region, who held gazetted posts of district Panchayat Officers, and that, therefore, Mohinder Singh should be shown as junior to the all the Panchayat Officers of Pepsu. It is not disputed that this decision of the Central Government was somehow not communicated by the director of Panchayats to the petitioners till they submitted another representation, in December, 1964, complaining of their case having been kept pending. The explanation given by respondent No. 2 (State of Punjab) for not having communicated the said decision to the petitioners (as contained in paragraph 14 of the written statement) is that the decision of the Government of india "could not be conveyed immediately after it was taken in 1961 as papers were mislaid somewhere. " according to the return of the State, the said decision was conveyed to the petitioners only in October, 1965. In the meantime the petitioners sent their last reminder, dated August 11, 1965 (Annexure 'd' ). In reply, the Secretary to the punjab Government sent with his letter, dated October 26, 1965 (Annexure 'e'), a copy of letter, dated April 14, 1961 (Annexure 'f'), an a copy of the Central government's decision (Annexure 'g") to the petitioners. It was in the situation detailed above that the present writ petition was filed to quash and set aside the orders of the state Government and the Central Government in the matter of equation of the posts of the petitioners to the non-gazetted posts in the erstwhile state of Punjab and the final gradation list published in February, 1964. In the writ petition of further prayer has been made to direct the Central Government to frame appropriate integration rules and to integrate the petitioners in the new state of Punjab without being influenced by the State Government. The petitioners claim to be entitled to be integrated with Class II employees of the erstwhile State of Punjab and pray for a fresh gradation list being prepared after giving due consideration to the cadre, position, rights, status, rank and scale of pay of the petitioners.

(3.) THE State of Punjab respondent No. 2, has filed a detailed written statement, according to which the Integration Rules were made in accordance with the advice of the Central Government and were subjected to the directions which the government of India might issue under section 115 (5) and section 117 of the Act. Respondents Nos. 3 and 5 to 7 have filed a joint return, dated May 21, 1967, in the form of an affidavit of Hari Krishan, respondent No. 5, Various additional defence have been raised in their return.