STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. versus SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (DEAD) BY L.RS.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 955 · Decided: 10-12-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~· • 
• 
•. 
i. 
955 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 
v. 
A 
SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
December 10, 1975 
(K. K. MATHEW AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.) 
StaTeJ Reorganisatio'n Act ( 1956)-Section 115-Gradation List of inter se 
seniority of officers after integration of States prepared on the principles laid 
B 
down in notificatioiz No . . 2581/2577 IV-St dated 28-10-1961, after an objecti"e 
and thorough consideration of vario'us aspects of the career of the employees is 
valid-Representation by affected employee, not filed within a month of the, pub-
licvtion of Provisional gradation list, but filed after final gradation List is not 
valid. 
"R" an employee of the Government of C.P. & Berar on the formation of the 
State of Madhya Pradesh, carV'ed ont by merging the erstwh_ile States of Maha 
C. 
Koshal, Madhya Bharat, Vindbya Pradesh & Bhopal in 1956 was allotted lo the 
new State of Madhya Pradesh. 
A provisional common gradation list of those 
officers of various departments allocated from the merging states was prepared, 
in accordance with the principles laid down and as per the States Reorganisation 
Act, 1956 on 3-10-1961 and published in the M.P. Government gazette 
on 
28-10--1961. 
Objections if any, were also called for within a month therefrom 
from the affected employees. 
A final gradation list was prepared on November 
7, 1964 and published in the official gazette on November 11, 1964. On Octo-
ber 1, i 964 the respondent, aggrieved by the position given to him in the grad a-
D 
tion list represented that he should have b·een shown senior to five officers bail· 
ing from Maha Koshal Region because be was appointed as Assistant Sales Tax 
Officer in that region before them. The assigning of higher seniority to the 
said officers was after taking into consideration the fact of their holding posts 
carrying almost equivalent grade of the post held by the respondent. 
The re~­
pondent made another representation on February 2, 1965 and filed a writ 
on October 16, 1966. The rule nisi was made absohzte on September 20, 1969,' 
by the Madhya Pradesh High Court following an earlier decision of that Court 
in Kanbayalai Pandit's case decided on November 17, 1964 wherein it was held 
E 
that the affected employees could make their represenl:ftion only after the final 
gradation liS<t is published. 
On appeal by special leave, the Court 
HELD : (i) The object of preparing a tentative or provisional gradation list 
was to give au opportunity to the officers whose seniority was determined in the 
list to make their representation in order 'to satisfy the Government regarding 
any mistake or error that had crept in the gradation list. If the employee 
concerned did not file his representation within a month from the date of the 
publication of the provis.ional gradation list, then bis representation should have 
been rejected out right. [959 F-G] 
(ii) Jn fact the purport of S. 116 (5) (b) of the State Reorganisation Act, 
1956 was that there should be a fair and equitable treatment of all persons 
affected by the provisions of that section. This could only be done if boefore 
a final gradation list was prepared the officers were -given an opportunity to 
acquaint the Government with their respective points of view. 
It was indeed 
a strange view to take that the provisional gradation list was absolutely of no 
consequence and after the said list was finalised and the time for finalising re-
presentation expired, then alone the employee$ concerned should have 
been 
asked to file their representations. This is really putting the cart boefore the 
horse. 
Once the list was finalised, it would be difficult for the Government to 
review 'ts orders which would lead to serious complication9 and dislocation of 
the service structure of the State. [960 B-D] 
(iii) It appears, from a perusal of the various clauses of S. J 15 of the 
F 
G 
State Reorganisation Act that the Statute contemplated three stages for determin. 
H 
ing the seniority of the officers. 
(a) The formation of Advisory Committees and determination of principles 
on the basis of which the seniority was to be def:oermined; 
6-L277SCT/76 
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
( b) the preparation of a provisional gradation list so as to give an oppor-
B 
tunity• to the employees concerned to file their objections; and 
( c) the publication of the final gradation list after consideration of the 
objections filed by the employees conc

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