STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC .

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 907 · Decided: 10-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
• 
A 
STATE OF IDMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC . 
. April 10. 1974 
907 
B 
(A. N. RAY, C.J., Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND V. R. KRISHNA !YER, JJ.j 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1956, 
~·. 82(6)-Punjab officers allocated to 
Himachal Prade.sh-Mode of integration 
of Punjab 
o{!icers and Himachal 
Pradesh officers. 
The. app.el!ants were upgraded fro~ the post of Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors 
of. tax<it1on in the for!ller State of PunJab on 1st April, 1966. 
They were ullocat· 
ed tQ the State of H1machal Pradesh on 1st November, 1966, the appointed day 
under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The respondents were Excise Sub-
In'.:.pectors in Himachal Pradesh on that date. 
On 14th February, 1967, the 
Central· Government gave instructions for equating posts for the 
purpose of 
integration .in the services. 
On the 26th Arri!, 1969, th;! Central 
Govern1nent 
wrote to the State Government that 45 posis of Excise and Taxatfon Sub-
Inspect?fS in Himac.hal Pradesh may be abolished and in their place 33 posts 
of Excise and Taxation Jnspectors may be created. The State Government gave 
effect to the directions of the Central Government and upgraded the Excise Sub-
Inspectors to Inspectors, with effect from 1st I\fay, 1969. Thus, the upgrading 
was done with the sanction of the Central Government in accordance with the 
provisions of s. 82(6) of the Act. On 29th May, 1971 the State of Himachal 
Pradesh, by an execulive decision. changed the date of upgrading of the res-
pondellts from 1st May, 1969 to tst April, 1966. 
The State prepared two seniority lists in one of which one of the, appellants 
was mentioned along with the officers of Himachal Pradesh, and in the other~ 
the other appellants were shown as juniors to the officers of Himacha1 Pradesh. 
The State Government also appointed four Excise Inspectors of Himachal 
Pradesh as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers. 
The appellants challenged (a) the change in the date of promoti6n of the 
officers of Himachal Pradesh to 1st April, 1966, (b) the two seniority lists and 
(c) the four promotions as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers. 
The High Court set aside the two seniority lists and the four promotions and 
gave the follo\ving directions regarding the preparation of seniority lists, namely, 
(i) that the appellants should be equated with the Inspectors of Himachal 
Pradesh that is. that all inspectors of Himachal Pradesh should 
be 
taken as 
Excise and Taxation Inspectors and that their cadre should be taken as 
joint; 
(ii) that the date of continuous ani:iointment in an equated post shall govern the 
seniority, (iii) that specific approval of the Central Government is to be taken-
under s. 82(6) if the date of upgradation is to be fixed as 1st April, 1966; and 
(iv) that the rules of p·romotion to th~ Posts of Assistant Excise and Taxation 
Officers should be prepared after getting the approval of the Central Government. 
Jn appeal to this Court, the appelTants contended that the directions given re-
garding the preparation of seniority lists should be set aside. on the ground that 
the appellants were deprived of their quota of promotion under r.6 of Class 111-A 
Punjab Rules, 1956, that the posts of Excise Inspectors and Taxation Inspectors 
belonged to different cadres, that the appellants belonged to the Taxation 
Cadre, and that for oromotion under the Punjab Rules, 3 years continuous ser-
H 
vice as Inspectors was sufficient. 
HELD : (I) If the State Government of B.imachal Pr~desh wished to cbang.r 
the date ·of upgradation to 1st April, 1966 the State Government cannot do so 
without the sanction of the Central Government under s. 82(6) of the 
Act. 
The State of Himachal Pradesh not only set at naught the direction of the· 
' 
908 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1974] 3 S.C.R. 
Central Government, but by givins a retrospective validation to the date up-
A 
gradation, changed the con 'ltions of services of the appellants to 
their 
dis· 
.1dvantage. 
Hence lhe direction :hat if the State Government wanted to alter 
the date of upgr~dation of posts of Himachal Pradesh Sub-Inspector;; to 1st April, 
1966, i.he :;ancbon of the Central Government should have been obtained 
is 
correct. [912 D-E, 913 HJ 
(2) The other direction given by the High Court that the rules for promotion 
lo the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector shall be finalised after getting the 
B 
approval Of the Central Government is also correct. [913 H] 

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