STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. versus VINAYAK

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 06-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

587 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
v. 
VINA YAK 
January 6, 1977 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Seniority and arrears of salary-Respondellt Governme/lf ser.vant in Madhya 
Pradesh on Reorganisation of States was allotted to 
Bombay and 
then 
to 
Maharashtra-Supersession in seniority list. grievance 
about-Circular 
No. 
SRV-1064-D dt. 25.2.1965 of the Maharashtra Government does not govern 
<JUCstions Of seniority and supers.ession arising froni Reorganisation •of Staies-
Circiilar No. SH-INT-1059-Vl-9 dt. 10.3.1960 alone applies to the respondent's 
case. 
T/u, 1965 circular does not take away the rights, if any, under Rule 21 
of the A /located Government Servants (Absorption, Seniority, Pay and A /lo-
ances) Rules 1957-Scope of Rule 21. 
A 
B 
c 
Consequent to reorganisation of 
States, 
the 
Maharashtra 
Government 
published seniority lists from time to time, erroneously according to the res-
pondent a lower place of seniority with the result that juniors got promoted 
and his promotion was unduly delayed. 
The respondent filed a writ petition 
asking for due recognition of his seniority, and later amended 
his 
petition, 
D 
claiming arrears of pay and allowances retrospectively from the date on which 
be ought to have been promoted according to the final gradation list wherein 
he was placed correctly and which was approved by the Central Government. 
The writ petition was allowed by the High Court. 
Before this Coµrt the respondent contended that under rule 
21 
of the 
Allocated Government Servants (Absorption, Seniority, Pay and Allowances) 
Rules, 1957, he was entitled to draw his pay and allowances from the date of 
his promotion including the deemed date of promotion. 
E 
Allowing the appeal by Special Leave, the Court, 
HELD : (1) The Maharashtra Government circular No. SRV 1064 dt. 
25.2.1965 does not have the effect of altering the respondent's 
conditions 
of 
service to his prejudice since the said circular issued by the State Government 
does not fall within the mischief of proviso to s. 115(7) of the States Reorga-
nisation Act. [592 A] 
(2) The circular deals with cases where Government servants 
who 
were 
superseded for promotion to the higher post are later promoted on orders of 
higher authorities who considered the supersession unjustified and who having 
power to set aside orders of supersession have set aside such orders. 
[590 DJ 
(3) The circular dt. 25.2.1965 is not intended 
to 
govern 
questions 
of 
senio;-ity and supersession arising as a result of Reorganisation of States. 
That 
circular by its language is designed to meet cases in which a Government ser-
vant apart from the provisions of States Reorganisation Act and apart from 
the problems arising out of reorganisation of States was denied 
his 
rightful 
·seniority but is later accord·ed a due and appropriate place in the seniority list. 
[590 F-G] 
( 4) The circular issued by the Government of Maharashtra on February 
25 1965 does not take away from the respondent the right, if 
any, 
which 
w;s available to him under rule 21. 
Rule 21 is not in the nature of an enti!le-
ment. . On the other hand, it restricts the right of the allocated Government 
servant to receive pay and allowanc~s "only with effect from 
the . date" from 
which he became available for service or would have been so available except 
for the causes mentioned in rule 2(d). 
[592 B-D] 
F 
G 
II 
A 
B 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1977] 2 S.C.R. 
. (5) The respondent's case must fall 
within 
the 
Bombay 
Government 
Circular No. SR-INT-1059-VI dt. 10.3.1960 in which .case he would not be 
en!Jtled. to the arrears for salary for the period prior to the date of his actuat 
promot10n. 
[591 G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 
651 
of 
1976. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
19-6-1974 of the Bombay High Court in 
S.C.A. 
No. 
1251 
of 
1970.) 
M. N. Phadke, Girish Chandra and M. N. Shroff, for the appel-
lants. 
C 
S. V. Gupte, N. Kamalakar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the res-
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
pondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, J. 
On the reorganisation of States on November 
1, 1956 the respondent who was working as an Agricultural Overseer 
in the then State of Madhya Pradesh was allocated first to the State 
of Bombay and later to the State of Maharashtra. 
By a resolution 
dated February 17, 1958 the Government of Bombay equated the 
post of Agricultural Overseer with th

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