STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS ETC. versus RAMAN LAL KESHAV LAL & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 30-07-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
144 
" 
1 : 
STATE OF GUJARAT &:ORS ETC. 
v. 
RAMAN LAL KESHA V LAL & ORS. ETC. 
Words & Phrases-'Civil Services'-'Civil Post'-Meaning of. 
The Gu]arat Panchayat Act, 1961 (Gujarat Act No. VI of 1962) came into 
force on June 15, 1962 in the State of Gujarat except in Kutch area and the 
district of Dangs. By an order made by the State Government on March 4, 
1963, the areas which . were within the jurisdiction of the several municipalities 
constituted under the Bombay Municipal Act, 1901 were declared to be gram 
or nagar, as the case may be. 
On April 1, 1963, sections 203 to 205 of the 
Panchayats Act were brought into operation. 
On March 26, 1963, the State 
Government entrusted some of its functions relating to recovery of land revenue 
etc. to the nagar and gram panchayats with effect from April 15, 1963. 
On 
August 1, .1963 by a notification issued under section 149 of the Panchayats 
Act, the State Government delegated some of its powers under the Land Reve-
nue .Code and rules made thereunder to the gram and nagar panchayats. Service 
rules like the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Gujarat 
Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, Gujarat Panchayat Service (Absorp· 
tion Seniority, Pay & Allowances) Rules, the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Trans· 
fer of Servants) Rules, 1968, Gujarat Panchayat Service (Promotion to Cadres 
in State Service) Rules, 1974, Gujarat Panchayat Service (Pension) Rules, i976 
were promulgated and iSsued by the State Government. 
On Ja~uary 2, 1967, 
the State Government passed an order under sub-section (2) of section 203 
of the Panchayats Act directing that the Panchayat Service shall consist of 
district cadre, taluka cadre and local cadre and specified the posts which 
. iwere to belong to each of such cadres in the Schedule appended to the said 
order. 'In Part III of the Schedule to that Order, the posts belonging to the 
local cadre were !)Pecified. 
Although the above steps were taken by the State for the constitution of 
the Panchayat Service, the State Government did not make any order regarding 
the equation of posts of the staff in the local cadre and fixation of . the.ir 
pay scale till 1975 notwithstanding repeated representations made by the ex· 
municipal employees and others who were included in the local cadre. The 
. 'stat~ G~vemnii:nt also did not make any rules prescribing the promotional 
GUJARAT V. RAMANLAL 
145 
avenues for the staff borne _on the local cadre of the Panchayat Service, nor 
-'A 
extended the benefit of revisions of pay scales and other allowances which 
were made on the basis of the recommendations of the First Pay Commission 
(Sarela Commission) and of the Second Pay Commission (Desai Commission). 
The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the appeal filed a writ application in a 
representative capacity for and on behalf of themselves and other officers ~nd 
servants who were originally in the employment of several municipalities which 
B 
had been constituted under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 and 
who were working as employees under gram panchayats or nagar panchayats 
which were established in the place of municipalities under the provisions of 
the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 for a Writ, order or direction to the Appel-
Jant (State of Gujarat) and others who had been impleaded as respondents 
directing them : (i) to pass orders regarding appointment in equivalent posts 
in the Panchayat Service of the State Government, fixation of seniority, pay 
C 
scales and allowances in the equivalent posts with retrospective effect and pay-
ment of ·the difference in salary and allowances, (ii) to frame rules providing 
for promotional avenues in the Panchayat Service as also in the State Service, 
and (iii) to extend the benefits flowing from pay revisions ordered by the 
State Government on the basis of the recommendations of the First Pay Com-
mission (Sarela Commission) and the Second Pay Commission (Desai Com-
mission) retrospectively. It was contended that the Panchayat Service was as 
-D 
much a service under the State as any other Civil Service, that the State 
'Government had faiied to discharge its statutory duties in relation to the 
members of the staff included in the local cadre of the Panchayat Service 
and that the denial of benefits similar to those extended to other members 
of the State Civil Service on the basis of the reports of the two Pay Com-
missions amounted to hostile discrimi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.