LexR.M. RAMUAL versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
R.M. RAMUAL A v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ORS. DECEMBER 2, 1988 [MURARI MOHON DUTT AN[) S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] B Seniority List-Challenge to liability of-When permissible. States Reorganisation Act, 1955: Section 82-Conditions of service--Variation of-Previous approval of Central. Government- When necessary-Integration of services of persons from .. transferred territory of Punjab to Himachal Pradesh-Ministry of Home Affairs letter dated 14.2.1967-Effect of. Under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, November l, 1966 was fixed as the appointed day on and from which date certain territories of the State of Punjab were transferred to the Union Terri- tory of Himachal Pradesh, alongwith some officers and staff. Accord- ingly, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 who were holding the posts of Tourist Officers in the Pay-scale of Rs.250-350 in the State of Punjab were allocated to Himachal Pradesh as Tourist Officers in the same scale. The appellant who was a confirmed Reception Officer in the Depart- ment of Public Relations & Tourism, Himachal Pradesh, had been temporarily promoted on May 13, 1966 as District Public Relations Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.250-500, against an ex-cadre post. In the provisional seniority list and the final seniority list published in 1971, the appellant was shown as Reception Officer while respondents Nos. 4 and S were shown senior to him as Tourist Officers. The appellant made a representation to the Government regard- ing his promotion and seniority. As a result, the appellant was given proforma promotion as Assistant Manager with retrospective effect from June 4, 1966. In the seniority list prepared by the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation on December 31, 1977 the name of the appel- lant was placed at the top of the names of other the officers including those of respondents Nos. 4 & S. c D E F G However, on the representation of respondent Nos. 4 & S, the H 1009 A B c D E F G 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R., Tourism Development Corporation issued an order dated April 28, J982 that the inter se seniority of the appellant and respondents nos. 4 & 5 was to be determined on the basis of their substantive ranks on November l, J966, and that the said respondents being in higher scale on that date would rank senior to the appellant, as the appellant was not entitled to any advantage in seniority on account of his proforma promotion. The appellant moved a writ petition before the High Court against the order dated April 28, 1982. The High Court dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground that the seniority list once finalised after integration could not be reopened. Allowing the appeal, it was,, HELD: (l) Both the provisional and the final seniority lists were prepared without complying with the directions of the Central Govern- ment, as contained in the letter of the Joint Secretary to the Govern- men\ of India, MinistryofHomeAffairs,dated February 14, 1967. [1017E-F] (2) According to the instructions issued by the Central Govern- ment for the integration of services, and determination of relative seniority, one of the two steps which had to be taken was determination of equivalent posts, the most important factor for such determination being the salary of the post. [1014F-G] (3) There was no attempt to determine the equivalent posts, that is to say, no endeavour was made by the Government to equate one post with another for the purpose of integration and determination of rela- tive seniority. Instead, the posts as they were, were placed in the senio- rity list. [1017F] , (4) Under the directions of the Central Government, the post of Tourists Officer could not be equated with that of the District Public Relati.ons Officer because the scale of pay of the former is less than that of the latter. [IoisEJ (5) One of the factors that should have been taken into considera- tion for the purpose of determination of relative seniority as mentioned in the letter of the Government of India, is length of continuous service whether temporary or permanent in the equivalent post, excluding periods for which an appointment is held in a purely stopgap or fortui- H tousarrangement. [1017G-H] -- R.M. RAMUAL v. STATE OF H.P. 1011 (6) The Government utterly ignored the direction of the Central Government and the appellant's substantive rank as the Reception Officer as on November 1, 1966 was erroneously taken
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.