M. D. SHUKLA & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 515 · Decided: 06-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
515 
M. D. SHUKLA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
February 6, 1970 
[J. C. SIL\H AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.) 
States Reorganisation Act 37 of 1956 ss. 115, 116, 111-Bombay Re-
organisation Act 11 of 1960, ss. 81, 82 & 83-Pennanent employees of 
Saurashtra and Kutch States allotted to Bombay State af~er passing of 
Act 37 of 1956 but postfd in districts of Saurashtra and Kutch-Allotted 
to Gu;arat State after passing of Act 11 of 1960-Transferred to Secreta-
riat-Government order regularising their services in Secretariat and fix-
ing their pay and seniority-Regularisation whether amounted to 'absorp-
tion' within nieaning of Bombay Allocated Government Servants' (Ab-
sorption. Seniority, Pay and Allowances) Rule., 1957,-R. 138 of Bom-
bay Civil Services Classification and Rearuitment Rules, 1939 as amended 
in 1957 whether violated by such regularisation. 
Prior to November I, 1956 the appellants were holding permanent 
posts in the ministerial service of the Secretariats of the Part B State 
of Saurashtra and the Part C State of Kutch. 
By virtue of s, 8 of the 
States Reorganisation Act 37 of 1956 the new State of Bombay which in-
cluded the territories elf the States of Saurashtra and Kutch was formed. 
Under s. 115(1) of the Act the appellants were allotted to serve in con-
nec:tion with the affairs of the new State of Bombay. 
Bv the proviso to 
s. 115(7) it was provided that 'conditions of service applicable imme-
diately before the appointed day to the case of any person allotted to an-
other State shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previ-
ous approval of the Central Government'. 
Section 116 provided for the· 
continuance of officers in equivalent posts. 
By s. 117 power was con-
ferred upon the Central Government to give directions to State Govern-
ments for the purposes of ss. 114, 115 and 116. The Act authorised the 
Central Government to establish one 
or more 
Advisory 
Committees 
to 
advise 
the 
Government 
on 
the 
division 
and 
integration 
of 
the services in the new States and for ensuring fair and equitable treat, 
ment to all persons affected by the provisions of s. 115 and for proper 
consideration of any representation 
made by those persons. A large 
majority of the members elf the ministerial branch of the Secretariats of 
the State of Saurasht•a and Kutch were unwilling to be posted in the 
Secretariat of the new State of Bombay. 
A large majority out of them 
including the appellants were accordingly posted in the districts of the 
former States of Saurashtra and Kutch. 
Under the Bombay Reorganisa-
tion Act 11 of 1960 the States elf Gujarat and Maharashtra were carved 
out of the territory of the new State of Bombay. Sections 81, 82 and 83 
of the 1960 Act were substantially the same as ss. 115, 116 and 117 of 
the 1956 Act. The services of the appellants were under s. 81 of the 
Act allotted to the newly constituted State of Gujarat. The State elf 
Gujarat transferred the appellants from the districts to the Secretariat~ 
After consulting the Public Service Commission it issued on August 19, 
19~6 an order"re~l~rising" the services of the app.ellants and fixing 
their pay and semonty. The officers of the Secretariat who before the 
passing of the said order cotistituted the ministerial service filed a petition 
in the High Court challenging its validity. The High Court allowed the 
petition mainly on two grounds, namely : (i) that the appellants were not 
absorbed in the ministerial services of the Secretariat within the meaning 
516 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 3 s.c.R. 
of the Bombay Allocated Servants' (Absorption, Seniority, Pay and Allow-
ances) Rules, 1957; (ii) that r. 138 of the Bombay Civil Services Classifi-
cation and Recruitment Rules, 1939 as amended in 1957 allowed recruit-
ment to the Ministerial Staff of the Seci'etariat by nomination after an 
examination or by promotion from the Lower Division and it Vv'aS not 
open to the Government to adopt any other method. 
The High Court's 
-decision was 
challenged in appeal before this Court. The Court 
noted 
that 
no 
equivalence 
had· 
been 
established 
between 
the 
posts in the Secretariats of the States of Saurashtra and Kutch and 
the posts in the new State of Bombay or later in Guja:rat and that 
there had been no integration df the services by the Central Government. 
It was conceded before the Court that the State 
had the authority to 
1ransfer, subject to the Constitutio

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