UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus P. K. ROY & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 186 · Decided: 09-11-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

Ul'ilON OF I!'IDIA & ANR. 
P. K. ROY & ORS. 
November 9, 1967 
[K. N. WA:-.'CHOO. C.J., R. s. BACllAWAT, V. RAMASWA~11. 
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE. JJ.J 
States Reor1:anisation Act (37 of 1956), s. 115(5)-Power of Cen1'a/ 
Ciovernment to fix sentority of offu·~rs in rc-orgcl111'.H·d Statt•\·-Prt·lin1i-
na,.y work done hy Stale Govern1nent.}-/ f i111proper dele~ation. 
Natural J11sticl"--Application of rules-Depends 
on facts of 
each 
case. 
Respondents 1 to 13 were Assistant Engineer, in the State of Madhva 
Pradesh before it "-'a-; ~organised under the States Reorganisation Act. 
1956. 
After the formation of the new Sta~ of \-ladhya Pradesh. thcv 
continued to serve in th~ new State along with officers taken O\.'Cr fron1 
the absorbed States and regions. and. it became 
necessary 
to 
integrate 
the service and to fix the inti!r se seniority of the officers of the integrated 
si:rvice. 
The Chief Secretaries of tbc various Slates that were to be 
affected by the roorganisatioo had evolved certain general principles 1hat 
!'hou!d be observed with regard to the integration ""·ork and the Govern-
ment of India informed the State Governments that the work of inrc-
g,ration of -serviCL"S should be dealt v.·itb by the State Government<> in 
1he light of those principle-;. 
Thercafll'f, the Stale Government pub-
lished a 
provi~ional gradation list of the department to \\o'hich 1he rec.-
pondcnt.'\ tx.·longcd and notified, that 
any go\crnml'Ot 
~rvant 
f·:clin~ 
aggriC"tcd was cnlitlcd to send his represco1ation to the ('entral Govern-
ment. 
Representations v.·cre received from respondent-; 1 to 4, 6 and 7 
and .some other officers. and th:>sc representations were sent by the State 
Government to the Central Go..,·ernment for being dealt with in con~ulta
tioo with the Advisory Committee it had conc,titutcd for dealing v.1ith 
lhe representations from officers affected hy _the rcorgani'Sation. 
Since 
the St.ah..· Government had prepared the lic,t on a basis different from thJt 
!.uggest1..'\J hv the Central GO\.'Crnmcnt the latter dirt."'ClCJ that a revised !isl 
5;hould IJC prepared on the b~is of the formula laid dov.11 by the C·.!ntral 
Ciovcrnmcnt. 
Accordingly, the State (Jo..,·L·rnn1cnt [)C'flt a second Ji,t prc-
Plf;!d on the basis of that formula, <tnJ 
the ("cntral 
Go\-·emmcnt. 
:n 
con...1:iult.1tion with the Ad,·isory Committee. cxan1ined both the 
li"-h 
.tnd 
1h~ rerre5entations of ofticers already rC'Ccivc<l 
and 
decided th:it 
the 
.-,L-cond gradation lis1· should be approvcJ subjcc1 to C4.'rtain modific,itton-.. 
and cert.:Un directions in the case of officers from the Mahakoshal region. 
It wa ... further directed that as the rc-arran~emcot a~ per modificationc, 
suggt.."h.'d v.·:tc; likely Ill 3fTect the rank-. l,f officer.. of other 
~!!ion-.. thl' 
entire list should he rcvicv.red in 1hc light ol dirccticm" f!t\'l'n hy the 
('c.utral Govemm-ent. 
On 1his dircclion. the Stall' Governmt:'nt rcfi.\ed 
the lnt,·r 5(' senioritv of officers fron1 the !\-1ahakoshal rL'gion. and there-
after. pr .... .,,arcd the tlnal .~radation lic.t and published it. 
'Th.t., f\.~dcnt' thcrcup.cm filed tt v.·rit 
petition 
in 
the J-i'igh 
Co11rt 
challenging the v;tlidit~· of the final !!f:tdation 
li~t on two ~round-. : ( 1) 
thal the Y1nrk of 
intcf!ration was 
c_~clu-.iv~ly entrn ... tt"d to'thc 
Central 
Government hv s. I IS ( 5) of the Stale-. Reorgani-.:irion Act anJ that tt~ 
final gr3i.1Jtion ·li-;t a:- puhli,hed ,,_."" ilh:-gJI :1.0d 
11/tra ~·ir1'.'i 
hec;H1.;c,"-tll1..T1..' 
Y.'<ts L'!lprl"p .. :r delt:'gation of its po\l\.·ers and duties hy the Central Govern-
...
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
G 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
UNION OF INDIA V. p. K. ROY 
187 
mcnt to the State Government, and; (2) in the circumstances of the 
present case the respondents· should have been given another opportunity 
of making a representation before drawing up the final gradation list. 
The High Court allowed the petition. 
In apl'C'll to this Court. 
Held : ( l) Even on the assumption that the task of integration was 
exclusively entrusted to the Central Government, the High Court W"-' in 
error in holding that there was imoroper delegation of its statutory power 
by the Central Government. 
[200G] 
In the present case the stel'S take~ by, the Central Government in the 
matter of integration did not amount to any delegation of its essential 
•tatutory functions, becaUSe it was the Central Government which laid 
d°""1 the principles for integration.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.