VASANT KRISHNARAO PATURKAR & ANR. versus D. R. MAJRAMKAR & OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 857 · Decided: 08-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
VASANT KRISHNARAO PATURKAR & ANR. 
v. 
D. R. MAJRAMK'.AR & OTHERS 
April 8, 1974, 
[H. R. KHANNA AND P. N. GosWAMI, JJ.] 
857 
S1ates' Reorganisation Act, 1956--S. 115 and l11-Whetl1er Higf1 Court can 
decide issues of gradation senioriJy etc. of officers (lllotted to the bilingual state 
of Bombal' after reorca11isation of States. 
The appellants and the first 19 res,Pondents and respondents 22 to 24 ~re 
the employees in the Agriculture Dept. of the State of Maharashtra following 
reorganisation of states. 
Respondents 1 to 19 were the original petitioners in S.C.A. No. 1354/70. 
They were offi:cers of the former Hyderabad State. They prayed in their appli-
cation for a writ to set aside the Bombay Government's Resolutions dated 17th 
February 1958 and 16th ~fay 1969 and.the provisional gradation List of 27th 
Seotemb:r 1969 and the promotion orders of 5th and 6th June 1970 and other 
coitsequential reliefs. 
The Bombay High Court disposed of the application on merits ln favour 
of th.e appellants. The orders oC the High Court affected the interests of the 
present appellants. 
• 
Before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, appellant No. 1 and 
three other officers lodged an applica~on impleading the State of Maharashtra and 
88 other respondents including the present respondent 1 to 19. Respo_ndents 1 to 
19 and others contested the application ·before the Nagpur bench unsuccessfully. 
The Nagpur b:!nch allowed the writ- application and quashed the resolution of 
the Government dated 9-9-1960 and combined Seniority List of 22-8-62 and 
quashed the order of absorption of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 89. 
The respondents, who were Agricultural officers from Hyderabad Region. 
Preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Nagpur High Court ~fore the 
Supreme Cou1i. They were, allowed to withdraw the same without prejudice 
to all pa~ties affected to make representations to the Government .in accordanc~ 
with :;. 115 of the Sta~es Reora,anisation Act 1956. 
The Govern;nent of .Maharashtra made a new gradation list on 27-9·69 and 
allowed certair. consequential orders of promotion on 5th,,and 6th June, 1970. 
This, therefore led to the Special Civil Application No. 1354 of 70 
at the 
instance of respondents 1 to 19. 
The appellant and another 1;1erson had also filed Special Civil 
Application 
No. 1126/71 in the Nagpur Bench for quashing the resolution 
of Bombay 
Government of 16th Mav 1969 on certain grounds. That matter is still pending 
in the Nagpur Bench. The respondents 1 to 19 were impleaded as respondents 
in that application but they,·did not file anv affidavits in suppol't of their case. 
When the matter came up for hearing, the appellants knew that another petition 
in the same subject was already decirled bv the Bombay 
High Court. 
The 
appellants took immediate stet?s in the Bombay High Court but failed to obtain 
any favourable orders. although they prayed for rehearing of the writ petition. 
The oroblem is a difficult one to decide gradation, seniority etc. when officers 
of 3 different States are alloted to the new bilingual state of Bombay under the 
provisions of the States Reorganisation Act. Setting aside the impugned judg~ 
ment and order of the Botnba.y High court and directing restoration of the 
Special Civil Application No. 1354/70 and disposal of the same in accordance 
v.·ith law, 
HELD : {I) There is sufficient guideline in Part X of the States Reorganisa-
tion Act 1956 and als9 ·in Part Vlll of the Bomtiav Reorganisation Act 1960 
858 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1974] 3 S.C.R. 
that lhe Government of India is the final authority in the matter of division and 
A 
integration of services among the new states tO ensure a fair and 
equitab1e 
1reatment to all per~ons affected by the reorganisation including proper conside·r-
11:tion of any representation made by concerned 
persons. 
Further it. is well 
settl~d that the Central Government under Sec .. 115 or the Act has to determine 
the principles governing equation of pests and prepare common gradation lists 
by integration of services an•j in doing so to ensure fair and equitable treatment 
to all persons concerned: [860 H; 861 A-B] 
I 
Q. Rajian Rai 11nd Ors. v. Union of b1dia & Or.if. A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 457, N. 
S11bbe1 RC10 etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [1972] 2 S.C.C. 862; and Uh.ion of 
/11d111 and a1101/ier v. P. K. Roy & Ors. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 186, referred to. 
(II) The High Court cannot clothe upo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.