STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MINISTERIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 08-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
MINISTERIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION 
October 8, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SII<RI, JJ.J 
States Reorganisation Act (37 of 1956), s. 115 and Allocated Govern-
ment Servants (Absorption, etc.) Rules of Bombay, 1957, rr. 10 and 12-
Scope of. 
By virtue of the powers conferred by s. 115 of the States Reorganisa-
tion Act, 1956, read with Art. 309 of the Constitution, the Allocated 
Government Servants (Absorption etc.) Rules we.re made by the Govern-
ment of the reorganised State of Bombay. 
In October 1960, Govern-
ment resolved, that the post of first grade clerks in the Revenue Depart-
ment in the districts of the Nagpur division which were integrated with 
the former Bombay State to form the new State, need not be equated to 
any other post but that its pay-scale should be revised from !st May 1960. 
Some of the first grade clerks filed a petition in the High Court for the 
issue of appropriate writs to quash the resolution and for ordering the 
Government to equate their posts with the post of Aval Karkwis in the 
former State of Bombay or in the alternative for directing the Govern-
ment to fix the revised scale of pay from !st November 1956 on which 
date the Aot took effect, instead of !st May, 1960. 
The High Court 
rejected the contention of the petitioner. as to equivalence but accepted 
their contention that the new scales of pay ought to commence on !st 
November, 1956 and not !st May, 1960 as ordered by Government. The 
clerks as well as the State appealed to the Supreme Court. 
In their appeal, the clerks contended that: (i) the Government was 
bound to find an equivalent post for them and that the nearest equivalent 
post was that of Aval Karkuns and (ii) by not assigning them to an 
equivalent post they had been discriminated against, and r. 12, which 
provides that a post need not be equated to an equivalent post is discrimi-
natory. 
In its appeal, .the State Government contended that, under 
r. 10 it was open to Government to fix the pay scales of an aUocated 
Government servant not only from !st November, 1956, but also from any 
subsequent date because the words of the rule "except where Government 
otherwise directs". 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
HELD: (i) The duties of Aval Karkuns in the former State of Bombay 
were entirely different from those which first grade clerks performed and 
G 
therefore, it was not possible to make the post of Aval Karkuns as an 
equivalent post to that of first grade clerks. [138 G-H] 
(ii) Discrimination can be proved only if equivalence is not carried out 
although an equivalent post is available. 
A rule which provides for a 
special treatment of an odd case is not necessarily discriminatory. Rule 12 
was made in view of the multifariousnes.s of the posts existing in the 
different components from which the principal successor State was formed 
and because, soma existing posts could not be equated with po.ts in the 
principal successor State and had to be treated on an independent foot-
ing. [139 A] 
134 
H 
-
-
STATE_ v. SERVICE ASSCN. (Hidayatullah, /.) 
135. 
A 
(iii) On the sense of the matter, as well as on their construction and 
position, the wordS of r. 10 were not intended to change the date on 
which the scales of pay were to come into operation, namely,. !st Novem-
ber, 1956, but to enable Government to make special orders which were 
not in accordance with els. (i) and (ii) o_f the rule. [140 C-D] 
The power which is conferred on Government by r. 12 to prescribe a 
new pay-scale must be exercised from ht November, 1956. Every one of 
B 
the rules, 14 to 19 and r. 23 mention over and over again that the new 
scales of pay shall be a• on or from !st November, 1956. The intention 
was to enable Government to make a change in the scale of pay but not 
to change the date of !st November, 1956, which was allvays the fixed 
date line. [140 F-0] 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 259• 
and 260 of 1964. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated October 27, 1961 
of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 42 
of 1961. 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, Ganapathy Iyer and B. R. G. K. 
D A char, for the appellants (in C.A. No. 259 of 1964) and the 
respondent (in C.A. No: 260 of 1964). 
N. D. Kharkhanis and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent 
(in C.A. No. 259 of 1964) and appellant (in C.A. No. 260 of 
1964). 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 

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