GURCHARAN DASS VAID versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 24-09-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

896 
GURCHARAN DASS VAID 
V. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
September 24, 1971 
[C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
States Reorganisation Act, 1956, ss. 115, 117 and 127-Reorganisa-
tion of Punjab and PEPSU-Punjab Clerical Service Rules, 1960-No 
previous approval by 
Central 
Government-Applicability-Directions 
given by Central Government under s. 117--0verriding effect of. 
The appellant was an Assistant Grade Clerk in the Police Department 
in the State of Punjab prior to reorganisation and the 4th respondent was 
occupying a similar post in PEPSU. The 4th respondent was senior to 
the appellant. 
At the time of the States reorganisation a provisional list 
df·persons in service in"the State of Punjab was prepared in 1957 and the 
4th respondent was placed in a railk lower than that of his juniors includ-
ing the appellant. The appellant was subsequently 
promoted and 
on 
March I, 1962, he was confirmed as Deputy Superintendent (Office). The 
4th respondent's seniority was however rectified in the final list and he 
was promoted as Deputy Superintendent (Office) in March 
1960. 
On 
April 18, 1965, the Central Government issued an order under s. 117 of 
the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, directing the Government of Punjab 
to determine the sen~ority, pay and other matters concerning the officers 
included in the final gradation list in accordance with the principles set 
out therein. The 4th respondent was promoted on Z6th July, 
1966 as 
ol!iciating Superintendent and was given March ), 1962, as the deemed . 
date of confirmation as Deputy Superintendent 
in accordance with the 
directive of the Central Government 
He had thus become 
senior by 
virtue of his seniority in the grade of Assistants in accordance with r. 8 
of Punjab Rules of 1933. 
The appellant filed a writ petition contending that since the promotion 
of 4th respondent was overlooked at the beginning and since the appel-
lant ~'as promoted earlier than the 4th respondent the conHrmations and 
deemed date must be from the date of actual promotion according to 
rule 10 of the Punjab Police Clerical Service (State Service Class Ill) 
Rule•, 1960. 
By the time the writ petition came up for hearing the 4th 
respondent was given April 6, 1961 as the deemed date of promotion 
as 
Supe·rintendent a1fter comparing his record as Deputy Superintendent with 
that of another officer who was senior to the appellant and who was also 
promoted as officiating 
Superintendent. On 26th February 1969, 
the 
4th respondent was confirmed as Superin(endent with effect from January 
29, 1963. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (I) The Punjab Clerical Service Rules of 1960 do not apply 
to persons governed by s. 115 of the States 
Reorganisation Act. 
They 
are governed only by the rules which immediately prior to the reorganisa-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
tion governed them. 
fu the present case, th.e Punjab Rules of 1933, gov-
erned the appellant and the PEPSU Rules of 1933 governed the 4th res-
pondent. Those rules were identical, so that, under r. 8(d) the seniority 
H 
of the members of the service holding the same posts shall be determined 
by the dates of their substantive appointment to such posts, provided that, 
if .two or more members are subsequently appointed on the same date, in 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
G. D. VAID V, PUNJAB 
897 
the case of the members who are both or all recruited by promotion, 
seniority shall be determined according to seniority in the appointments 
from which the members are promoted. [904 E-H] 
( 2) The 1960 ·rules cannot also apply because they were not issued 
with the previous approval 
of the Central Government under s. 115. 
Therefore, only those directions which the Central 
Government could 
give under s. 117 read with s. 127 of the States Reorganisation Act would 
govern the inter se seniority of the appellant and the 4th respondent. It 
cannot also be contended that when t)le 1960 rules were 
made by the 
Punjab Government they must be deemed to have received the previous 
approval of the Central Government. 
The proviso to s. 115(7) is clear 
and categorical and there·fore, previous approval must not be presumed 
but must be either categorically given or the approval must be unmistak-
ably apparent from the correspondence 
between the 
State and Central 
Governments. [905 G-H; 906 F-GJ 
Mohanuned Bhakar v. Y. Krishna Reddy, 
Services 
Law 
Reporter 
(Vo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.