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 appellants.
S.V. Gupte, N. Kamalakar and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent. 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 that of an Agricultural Assistant, Grade II. In July 1958 the respondent was promoted as an Agricultural Supervisor and in April 1967 he was appointed to the post of an Agricultural Officer.
On the reorganisation of States, a provisional combined seniority list of Agricultural Assistants, Grade II, was published by the Government of Maharashtra in 1961. That list was revised from time to time, and ultimately the Government of India approved the final seniority list which came to be published on May 29, 1973. The respondent has no grievance against’ his placement in that list, but his case is that under the seniority lists prepared from time to time by the State Government, he was erroneously accorded a lower place of seniority with the result that persons who were in fact junior to him came to be promoted on the assumption that they were senior to him. The respondent therefore filed the present writ petition on October 14, 1970 asking for due recognition of his seniority. He later amended that petition and asked for arrears of pay and allowances retrospecetively from the date on which he ought to have been promoted in accordance with the seniority list approved by the Central Government. The writ petition having been allowed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, the State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal by special leave.
The sole question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to arrears of pay with effect from the date on which he would, in the normal course, have been promoted if his seniority Were recognised as it eventually came to be recognised under the seniority list approved by the Central Government in 1973. The answer to this question depends on whether the rights of the respondent are governed by the circular dated March 10, 1960 or by the circular dated February 25, 1965. The case of the State Government is that the former, and not the latter circular, applies whereas the respondent contends that he is entitled to arrears of salary for the entire period under the latter circular.
We find it impossible to accept the respondent’s contention, which has found favour with the High Court, that the circular of February 25, 1965 governs the matter. That circular reads thus:
"Retrospective promotions of those who
had been superseded earlier.
Circular Memorandum No. SRV-1064-.D, Sachiva-
laya,
Bombay 32 (B.R.) 25th February, 1965/Falgune
6, 1886.
A question has been raised whether in cases
in which Government servants who were super-
seded for promotion to the higher post are
later promoted on the orders of higher author-
ities who consider the supersession unjusti-
fied and who having powers to set aside the
order of supersession, do so, their promotion
should be effective from the date on which
they are actually promoted or from the date
they should have been promoted had they not
been wrongly superseded. The Government has,
considered this question and decided that in
such cases, the Government servants concerned,
should be deemed to have been promoted to
higher post from the date from which they
would have been promoted, but for their wrong-
ful supersession i.e. from the date from
which their juniors who were promoted by
superseding them started to officiate in such
posts and they should be allowed pay in such
post as if they were promoted on the dates on
which their juniors were promoted and also
paid arrears of pay and allowances from such
dates.
(2) Orders in paragraph 1 above apply also to
the cases of persons, who are superseded for
promotion to gazetted post within the pur-
view of the Public Service Commission ordered
by Government but are later promoted when
their earlier supersession is considered in
consultation with the Commission unjustified.
(3) Pending cases should be regulated in
accordance with these orders in paragraphs 1
and 2 above, and arrears of
pay and allowances should be paid to the
persons concerned provided that if the arrears
relate to any period prior to the 1st May
1960, the payment is restricted to the period
after that date, i.e. after the st May 1960.
(4) This Circular Memorandum issues with the
concurrence of the Finance Department VIDE
that department unofficial reference No.
581/V, dated the 2nd February, 1965.
By Order and in the name of Government of
Maharashtra.
Sd/-
K.P. Nadkarni,
Deputy Secre-
tary to Govt." The language of this circular is singularly inappropriate to cover cases concerning equation and seniority consequent upon formation of new States. The circular deals with cases where government servants who are superseded for promotion to the higher post are later promoted on orders of higher authorities who considered the supersession unjustified and who, having powers to set aside orders of supersession, have set aside such orders. In such cases, the circular provides, the government servant concerned should be deemed to have been promoted to the higher post from the date from which he would have been promoted but for his wrongful supersession. There is no question in the present case of the respondent being promoted on the basis of any order passed by a higher authority. Nor indeed did any higher authority consider the so-called supersession of the respondent as unjustified. While approving the revised seniority list in which the respondent occupied a much higher place than previously, the Central Government did not set aside any order of the respondent’s supersession nor did it pass any order directing that the respondent be promoted to a higher post. We are clear that the circular of February 25, 1965, on which judgment.of the High Court rests, is not intended to govern questions of seniority and supersession arising as a result of reorganisation of States. That circular, by its language, is designed to meet cases in which a government servant, apart from the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act and apart from problems arising out of reorganisation of States, was denied his rightful seniority but is later accorded a due and appropriate place in the seniority list. Paragraph 2 of the circular which speaks also of posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission affords some indication that the circular is intended to apply only to cases of routine supersessions in the normal course of a service career.
If the circular of February 25, 1965 were intended to apply to a case like the present, it would have atleast referred to the circular of March 10, 1960 which specifically governs matters relating to fixation of seniority consequent upon the reorganisation of States. That circular, insofar as relevant, reads thus:
"Fixation of Seniority and pay on
promotion according to final gradation lists.
Political and Services Department
Circular No.. SR-INT-1059-VI
Sachivalaya, Bombay, 10th March, 1960
Promotions made on and after the 1st
November, 1956, have been treated as provi-
sional pending absorption of the personnel and
finalisation of gradation lists in accordance
with the allocated Government Servants’
(Absorption, Seniority, Pay and Allowances)
Rules 1957. They are also subject to review
in the light of the changes that may be made
in the gradation lists as a result of the
decisions on the representations Submitted by
the Government Servants concerned. Question
has been raised as to how seniority and pay in
the promotion post should be fixed in the case
of a Government servant who in the light of
the final gradation list, is promoted later
than the date on which he was due for promo-
tion. Government is pleased to direct that
seniority and initial pay on promotion
according to the final gradation list should
be fixed as if the Government servant had
been promoted on the date on which he would
have been promoted had the gradation list been
finalised on the 1st November 1956. The date
on which he would have been promoted should be
admitted on the basis of a certificate given
by the appointing authority specifying the
date. No arrears of pay should, however, be
paid for the period prior to the date of
actual promotion." Under this circular, the seniority and initial pay of the respondent has to be fixed as if he was promoted on the date on which he would have been promoted if the gradation list had been finalised on November 1, 1956. But no arrears of pay can be paid to him for the period prior to the date of actual promotion. The State Government relied upon this circular by their counter affidavit filed in the High Court but no challenge was made by the respondent to the vires or the validity of that circular even though he had his petition amended in order to ask for arrears of salary. On the assumption that the circular is within the powers of the State Government, we have no doubt that the respondent’s case .must fail within that circular, in which case he would not be entitled to the arrears of salary for the period prior to the date of his actual promotion.
Mr. Gupte appearing on behalf of the respondent relies upon rule 21 of "The Allocated Government Servants’ (Absorption, Seniority, Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1957" and argues that since under that rule the respondent is entitled to draw .his pay and allowances with effect from the date of his promotion to the higher post including the deemed date of promotion, the Government of Maharashtra has no power, in view of the proviso to s. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act, to alter his conditions o[ service to his prejudice. This argument is being advanced for the first time in this Court, but, apart from that, we are unable to agree either that rule 21 has the effect contended for or that the circular issued by the State Government fails within the mischief of the proviso to. s. 115(7). By rule 21, the arrears of pay and allowances "which may become due to an allocated government servant" on the fixation of his pay as on November 1, 1956 shall be payable only with effect from the date from which he became available for service in the State of Bombay or would have been so available but for the causes mentioned in rule 2(d). Rule 21 is not in the nature of an entitlement. On the other hand, it restricts the right of the allocated government servant to receive pay and allowances "only with effect from the date" from which he became available for service in the State of Bombay or would have been so available except for the causes mentioned in rule 2(d). The circular issued by the Government of Maharashtra on February 25, 1965 does not take away from the respondent the right, if any, which was available to him under rule 21.
For these reasons we set aside the judgment of the High Court, allow this appeal and direct that the respondent’s writ petition shall stand dismissed.. In view of the order passed at the time when special leave was granted, appellant shall pay the costs of the appeal to the respondent. S.R .... Appeal allowed.