Holding

A seniority list prepared without adhering to the Central Government’s prescribed procedure for determining equivalent posts and relative seniority is void and may be set aside, placing the appellant above the respondents.

Summary

The appellant, a Reception Officer who had been temporarily promoted to District Public Relations Officer, challenged an order that placed him below two Tourist Officers transferred from Punjab in the seniority list of the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Department. The High Court had dismissed his writ petition, holding that a final seniority list could not be reopened. The Supreme Court held that both the provisional and final seniority lists were prepared without complying with the Central Government’s February 14, 1967 instructions, which required determination of equivalent posts (based chiefly on salary) before fixing relative seniority. Because the Department ignored these directions and incorrectly used the appellant’s earlier substantive rank, the seniority list was vitiated. The Court also found no unreasonable delay in filing the petition and that the pro‑forma promotion did not violate Section 82(6) of the States Reorganisation Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant’s name was placed above the respondents in the seniority list.

Issues considered

The validity of a seniority list prepared after integration of services that ignored Central Government directions
Whether a pro‑forma promotion with retrospective effect violates Section 82(6) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1955
Whether the determination of seniority must consider equivalent posts based on salary and other factors as per the Central Government’s instructions
Whether the appellant’s delay in filing the writ petition is unreasonable
Whether the appellant’s substantive rank on the appointed day should be taken into account for seniority

Legislation cited

Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966s. 33, s. 5
States Reorganisation Act, 1955s. 82, s. 82(6)

Subjects

seniority listservice integrationStates Reorganisation ActPunjab Reorganisation Actpro‑forma promotionretrospective effectCentral Government directionsadministrative lawchallenge of final order

Judgment

R.M. RAMUAL
A
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ORS.

DECEMBER 2, 1988

[MURARI MOHON DUTT AN[) S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] B

Seniority List-Challenge to liability of-When permissible.

States Reorganisation Act, 1955: Section 82-Conditions of
service--Variation of-Previous approval of Central. Government-
When necessary-Integration of services of persons from .. transferred
territory of Punjab to Himachal Pradesh-Ministry of Home Affairs c
letter dated 14.2.1967-Effect of.

Under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, November l, 1966
was fixed as the appointed day on and from which date certain
territories of the State of Punjab were transferred to the Union Terri- D
tory of Himachal Pradesh, alongwith some officers and staff. Accord-
ingly, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 who were holding the posts of Tourist
Officers in the Pay-scale of Rs.250-350 in the State of Punjab were
allocated to Himachal Pradesh as Tourist Officers in the same scale.
The appellant who was a confirmed Reception Officer in the Depart-
ment of Public Relations & Tourism, Himachal Pradesh, had been E
temporarily promoted on May 13, 1966 as District Public Relations
Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.250-500, against an ex-cadre post.

In the provisional seniority list and the final seniority list
published in 1971, the appellant was shown as Reception Officer while
respondents Nos. 4 and S were shown senior to him as Tourist Officers. F

The appellant made a representation to the Government regard-
ing his promotion and seniority. As a result, the appellant was given
proforma promotion as Assistant Manager with retrospective effect
from June 4, 1966.
G
In the seniority list prepared by the Himachal Pradesh Tourism
Development Corporation on December 31, 1977 the name of the appel-
lant was placed at the top of the names of other the officers including
those of respondents Nos. 4 & S.

However, on the representation of respondent Nos. 4 & S, the H
1009
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.,

Tourism Development Corporation issued an order dated April 28,
A
J982 that the inter se seniority of the appellant and respondents nos. 4 &
5 was to be determined on the basis of their substantive ranks on
November l, J966, and that the said respondents being in higher scale
on that date would rank senior to the appellant, as the appellant was not
entitled to any advantage in seniority on account of his proforma
B promotion.

The appellant moved a writ petition before the High Court against
the order dated April 28, 1982. The High Court dismissed the writ
petition principally on the ground that the seniority list once finalised
after integration could not be reopened.

c Allowing the appeal, it was,,

HELD: (l) Both the provisional and the final seniority lists were
prepared without complying with the directions of the Central Govern-
ment, as contained in the letter of the Joint Secretary to the Govern-
D men\ of India, MinistryofHomeAffairs,dated February 14, 1967. [1017E-F]

(2) According to the instructions issued by the Central Govern-
ment for the integration of services, and determination of relative
seniority, one of the two steps which had to be taken was determination
of equivalent posts, the most important factor for such determination
E being the salary of the post. [1014F-G]

(3) There was no attempt to determine the equivalent posts, that
is to say, no endeavour was made by the Government to equate one post
with another for the purpose of integration and determination of rela-
tive seniority. Instead, the posts as they were, were placed in the senio-
F rity list. [1017F]

, (4) Under the directions of the Central Government, the post of
Tourists Officer could not be equated with that of the District Public
Relati.ons Officer because the scale of pay of the former is less than that
of the latter. [IoisEJ
G
(5) One of the factors that should have been taken into considera-
tion for the purpose of determination of relative seniority as mentioned
in the letter of the Government of India, is length of continuous service
whether temporary or permanent in the equivalent post, excluding
periods for which an appointment is held in a purely stopgap or fortui-
H tousarrangement. [1017G-H] --
R.M. RAMUAL v. STATE OF H.P. 1011

(6) The Government utterly ignored the direction of the Central
Government and the appellant's substantive rank as the Reception
A
Officer as on November 1, 1966 was erroneously taken into considera-
tion for the purpose of preparing the inter se seniority. This omission
vitiates the final seniority list, apart from the omission to equate one
post with another for the purpose of integration. [1018B-C]
B
(7) Normally, when a seniority list has been made final, it should
not be allowed to be challenged. But when a seniority list is prepared
ignoring all just principles and also the rules framed or directions given
by appropriate authority, seriously affecting any officer, it is liable to
be examined and set aside by the Court. [1018G-H]

(8) It is only on April 28, 1982 when the Government accepted the c
representation of respondents nos. 4 & 5 and directed that' the inter se
seniority of the appellant and the said respondents was to be determined
on the basis of their substantive ranks as on November I, 196_6 that the
cause of action really arose to the appellant for moving the writ peti-
tion. There has thus been no unreasonable delay on the part of the D
appellant to challenge the final seniority list. It is also not correct to say
that no representation was made by the appellant earlier. [1019E-F]

(9) What has been done in the instant case is that a· glaring
injustice was done to the appellant by taking into account his substan'
tive rank as the Reception Officer on November I, 1986, while as a E
matter of fact, on t.hat date he was holding the position of District Public
Relations Officers. That was done in violation of the directions of the
Central Government, and subsequently the Government rectified the
mistake by granting proforma promotion to the appellant with effect
from June 4, 1966 to the post of Assistant Manager equivalent to the
post of District Public Relations Officer. There is therefore no question F
of taking the previous approval of the central Government as contamp-
lated by Section 82(6) of the Act. [1020F-G; 1022C]

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Union of India, [1974] 3 SCR 907;
N. Subba Rao v. Union of India., [1973] 1SCR945.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6i4~
of 1983.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8. 1982 of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in CWP No. 109 of 1982.
H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (1988] Supp: 3 S.C.R.

A P.P. R.ao and Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant.

Shankar Ghosh, K.G, Bhagat, P.P. Juneja, Girish Chandra,
Ms. A. Subhashini and N.h. Sharma for the Respondents.
'
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
Dutt, J. This appeal by appeal leave is directed against the judg-
ment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petition
of the appellant challenging the Government order dated April 28,
1982 as a result of which the appellant was placed below the respon-
dents Nos. 4 and 5 in the seniority list.
c . The appellant was appointed as Reception Officer in the Depart-
ment of Public Relations & Tourism, Himachal Pradesh, on February
.26, !962 and was confirmed in that post· on May 18, 1966. He was
temporarily promoted to the post of District Public Relations Officer
in the pay-scale of Rs.250-500 on May 18, 1966. On June 3, 1966, a
D post of Assistant Manager, Tourism, was created in the parscale of
R;.250-500. One S.P. Singh, who was junior to the appellant was
appointed to that post inasmuch as the appellant was already holding
the post of District Public Relations Officer in the same scale of pay. It
may be stated here that both the posts of District Public Relations
Officer and Assistant Manager were ex cadre posts.
E
On July 26, 1966 the Department of Public Relations & Tourism
was bifurcated and a separate Department of Tourism was created. It
i; the case of the appellant that he made a representation that he.might
be transferred to his parent Department, that is, the Department of
Tourism.
F
While the representation of the appellant wa~ pending considera-
tion, the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as
'the Act', was enacted. The appointed day under the Act was fixed a
November 1, 1966. Under section 5 of the Act, on and from the
appointed day certain territories of the State of Punjab were added to
G the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. Sectfon 33 of the Act pro-
vides that every person who immediately before the appointed day is
holding or discharging duties of any post or office in connection with
the affairs of the existing State of Punjab in any area which on that day
falls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same
post of office in that successor State and shall be deemed, on and from
H that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the
R.M. RAMUAL v. STATE OF H.P. [DUTT, J.) 1013

Government of or other appropriate authority in, that successor State.
A
Under the proviso to section 33 nothing in that section shall be deemed
to prevent a competent authority on or after the appointed day from
passing in relation to such person any order affectin1f tlis continuance
in such post or office.

The respondents Nos. 4 and 5, who were holding the posts of B
Tourists Officers in the pay-scale of Rs.250-350 in the State of Punjab,
were allocated to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh as Tourist
Officers in the pay-scale of Rs.250-350. Although there were no posts
of Tourist Officer in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, in view
of section 33 of the Act, the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 continued to hold
the posts of Tourists Officers.
c
The Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs, in his D.O. letter dated February 14, 1967 issued certain
instructions for the purpose of integration of the services of per.on>
from the transferred territory of Punjab into those of the Himachal
Pradesh. Paragraph 2 of the said letter is in following terms: D

"2. Action for the integration of the services would have to
be initiated soon after the finalisation of allocations. Thi>
would involve two steps:

(i) Determination of equivalent posts, and E

(ii) Determination of relative seniority of persons holding
equivalent posts but drawn from different integration unit>.

For determining the equation of posts the following factor>
would have to be taken into consideration: F

(a) The nature and duties of a post;

(b) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the
officer holding the posts; the extent of territorial; or other
charge held or responsibilities discharged; G

(c) The minimum qualification>, if any, prescribed for
recruitment to the posts; and the

(d) the salary of the post.
H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A The following factors would have to be taken into account
for the determination of relative seniority:

(x) Length of continuous service, whether temporary or
permanent, in the equivalent post, this should exclude
periods for which an appointment is held in a purely stopgap
B or fortuitous attangement; and

(y) age of the person; other facts being equal, for instance,
seniority may be determined on the basis of age.

While determining relative seniority as mentioned
above, it was also be borne in mind that the inter se senio-
c rity of officers drawn from the same integrating unit should
as far as possible be maintained." ·

Thereafter, in paragraph 3 it is inter a/ia stated as follows:

D "3 ............................................... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In the meanwhile, I would
request you to initiate without avoidable delay the work of
establishing provisional equations between posts which
have come from the Punjab to Himachal Pradesh and those
which were in existence in Himachal Pradesh on the 31st
E October, 1966 and to prepare provisional seniority list as
on the 1st November; 1966 based on those equations for
each cadre {leaving out all localised cadre or cadres in
which the problem of integrating officers from the Punjab
with the officers of the Himachal Pradesh does not arise)."

F One of the two steps which was to be taken for the purpose of
integration was determination of eaquivalent posts. For determination
the equivalent posts, the factors which would have to be taken into
consideration were also suggested in the said letter. One of the factors,
which is by far the most important one, was as contained in clause (d) of
paragraph 2, namely, the salary of the post. It is apparent from the
G instructions given by the Central Government, as contained in the said
letter of the Joint Secretary, that for the purpose of integration the
first thing which should be done was determination of equivalent post
and after such determination, the determination of relative seniority of
persons holding equivalent posts would be made.

H It is surprising that although the instructions as given by the
R.M. RAMUAL v. STATE OF H.P. [DUTT, J.] 1015

Central Government were very clear and specific in the matter of A
integration of services, the Government of Himachal Pradesh instead
of following the two steps, as mentioned in the said letter of the Joint
Secretary, prepared a provisional seniority list of the Tourism Depart-
ment without first determining the equivalent posts. There can be no
doubt that integration of services postulates equation of posts. With·
out such equation, preparation of inter se seniority lists between diffe- B
rent groups of officers holding different posts cannot be conceived.
The Himachal Pradesh Government, however, appears to have
ignored the specific, clear and categorical directions of the Central
Government to first of all determine the equivalent posts and adopted
an arbitrary procedure in preparing the provisional inter se seniority
list without such equation of posts. In the provisional seniority list, the
said S.P. Singh who was holding the post of Assistant Manager with
c
effect from June 4, 1966 which post, as stated already, is an ex cadre
post like the post of District Public Relations Officer held by the
appellant, was placed at the top of seniority list as Assistant Manager.
After him were placed the names of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 as
Tourist Officers. The name of the appellant as placed below the names D
of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 as Reception Officer. Admittedly, the
appellant was senior to the said S.P. Singh. They were, however,
holding posts having the same scale of pay. The Tourist Officers who
joined the Tourism Department of the Government of Himachal
Pradesh from Punjab as a result of the transfer of certain territories of
Punjab to Himachal Pradesh, were placed above the appellant E
although, admittedly, their scales of pay were less than that of the
appellant. Under the directions of the Central Government, the post
of Tourists Officer could not be equated with that of the District Public
Relations Officer because the scale of pay of the former is less than
that of the latter. Moreover, it is not understandable why the appel-
lant's name was mentioned in the provisional seniority list as the F
Reception Officer, when he was on the appointed day, that is, on
November 1, 1966, holding the post of District Public Relations
Officer.
Be that as it may, the final seniority list that was published under
cover of the office Memorandum dated September 13, 1971 appears to G
be anomalous. In the final seniority list, the names of the Tourists
Officers including those of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were placed
above the Reception Officers and the name of the appellant was under
the head 'Reception Officer' below the names of the Tourists Officers
includ:ng those of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5. It was already noted
that the appellant was holding the post of District Public Relations H
Officer, an ex cadre post in the Public Relations Department.
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A It appears that the appellant had made a representation to the
Government regarding his promotion and seniority after the publica-
tion of the final seniority list. That representation bore result, for it
appears from the Memorandum dated August 7, 1973 of the Commis-
sioner of Transport & Tourism, Himachal Pradesh, that the Govern-
ment after careful consideration of the representation of the appellant
B dated June 30, 1973 agreed to give proforma promotion to him as
Assistant Manager in the pay-scale of Rs.225-300, with retrospective
effect in consultation with the Public Service Commission. The appel-
lant was requested to intimate as to whether he would opt to revert
from the Public Relations Department to serve as the Assistant
Manager or would like to continue with the Public Relations Depart-
ment. The commissioner of Transport & Tourism also sent a telegram
c dated march 3, 1974 to the appellant informing him of his proforma
promotion as Assistant Manager in the Department of Tourism. The
telegram was followed by a memorandum wherein it was stated that
the appellant, who was officiating an ex cadre post of District Public
Relations Officer in the pay-scale of Rs.350-500 in the Public Rela-
D tions Department, was given proforma promotion as Assistant
Manager in the Department of Tourism in the pay-scale of Rs.225-500
(with initial start of Rs.300) with effect from June 4, 1966. However, it
was stated that since the post of Assistant Manager was an isolated
one, the question of fixing his seniority did not arise.

E After the appellant had exercised his option for the Tourism
Department, the Deputy Secretary (Tourism) to the Government of
Himachal Pradesh by his letter dated February 6, 1975 requested the
Managing Director of the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development
Corporation Ltd., Simla, that the appellant might be treated like other
employees of the erstwhile Tourism Department, he having exercised
F his option validly and given a comparable post in the Corp,.oration. In
that letter, it was also stated that the appellant had alf along been
representing and requesting for the grant of extension in time to exer-
cise his option on valid grounds and as advised by the Law Depart-
ment, the option exercised by the appellant should be deemed to have
been given by him for proforma promotion as Assistant Manager with
0 retrospective effect from June 4, 1966.

A seniority list was prepared by the Himachal Pradesh Tourism
Department Corporation on December 31, 1977. In the said seniority
list the name of the appellant was placed at the top of the names of
H other officers including those of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
R.M. RAMUAL v. STATE OF H.P. [DUTT, J.] 1017

While the appellant was holding the position of the District.
Public Relations Officer in the said Himachal Pradesh Tourism. A
Development Corporation, his name having been placed above the
names of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5, the Department of Tourism
issued an order dated. April 28, 1982 on the representation of the
respondents Nos. 4 artd 5 directing that the inter se seniority of the
appellant and the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 was to be determined on B
the basis of their substantive ranks on November 1, 1966. Further, it
was directed that the proforma promotion granted to the appellant
with retrospective effect would not also entitle him to any advantage in
seniority, as he was not eligible to be appointed as Assistant Manager
according to the recruitment and promotional rules of the Depart-
ment. The inter se seniority of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 was
directed to be fixed on the basis of their substantive appointments as
c
on November l, 1966 and that the said respondents being in higher
scale on that case, would rank senior to the appellant.

- Being aggrieved by the said impugned Government order dated
April 18, 1982, the appellant moved a writ petition before the Hima- D
cha! _Pradesh High Court. The High Court, however, took the view
that the seniority list once finalised after integrating persons working
in the Tourism Department and those coming from Punjab could not
be reopened to the disadvantage of other persons. In that view of the
matter the High Court, as stated already, dismissed the writ petition.
Hence this appeal by special leave. E

It has been already noticed that both the provisional and the final
seniority lists were prepared without complying with the directions of
the Central Government, as contained. in the letter of the Joint Secre-
tary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated
February 14, 1967. There was no attempt to determine the equivalent F
posts, that is to say, no endeavour was made by the Government to
equate one post with another for the purpose of integration and de-
termination of relative seniority. Instead, the post as they were, were
placed in the seniority list. The Government also did not follow the
directions of the Central Government in determining the relative
seniority. One of the factors that should have been taken into consi- G
deration for the purpose of determination of relative seniority, as
mentioned in the said letter of the Joint Secretary, is length of con-
tinuous service whether temporary or permanent in the equivalent
post, excluding periods for which an appointment is held in a purely
stop gap or fortuitous arrangement. The appellant was, admittedly,
promoted to the post of District Public Relations Officer in the pay- H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
~

A
scale of Rs.2S0-500 on May 18, 1966. It.is notthe case of any party that
the promotion of the appellant was by way of any stop gap or fortui- I,,
tous arrangement. The final seniority list as on November 1, 1966 was
prepared on September 13, 1971. On November 1, 1966, admittedly,
the appellant was holding the ex-cadre post of the District Public Rela- '
tions Officer. According to the said directions of the Central Govern-
B nient, in preparing the relative seniority the position of the appellant
ai; the District Public Relations Officer should have been taken into
conside'ration. The Department utterly ignored the said direction of
the Central Government and the appellant's substantive rank as the
Reception Officer as on November 1, 1966 was erroneously taken into
consideration for the purpose of preparing the inter se seniority, even
though the appellant was on November 1, 1966 not holding the sub-
c stantive rank of Reception Officer, but the post of the District Public
Relations Officer in a temporary capacity. This omission on the part of
the Department and/or the Himachal Pradesh Government vitiates the
final seniority list, apart from the omission to equate one post with •
another for the purpose of integration. The final seniority list, as has
D been already observed, is an anomalous one and does not depict the
relative seniority among officers after integration in accordance with
the directions of the Central Government.

Mr. Shankar Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents Nos. 4 and 5 (respondent No. 5 has since died), submits
R that after the final seniority list was approved-by the Central Govern-
ment, it had become final and it cannot be challenged in 1982 after 11
years. Further, it is submitted by him that the final seniority list has
never been challenged by the appellant and, accordingly, he cannot be
allowed to challenge the same by filing a writ petition. It is true that
the final seniority list was sent to the Central Government and presum-
p ably it was approved, but because a seniority list has been approved by
the Central Government, it cannot be laid down as a· rule of law that
even though it has been illegally prepared in violation of the directions
of the Central Government itself to the prejudice of the officer or
officers concerned, it cannot be challenged. Normally, when a senio-
rity li&t has been made final, it should not be allowed to be challenged.
0 But when a seniority list is prepared ignoring all just principles and
also the rules framed or directions given by appropriate authority,
seriously affecting any officer, it is always liable to be. examined and
set aside by the Court. We are, therefore, unable to accept the conten-
tion of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 that the seniority
list having been made final after the approval of the Central Govern- -,
H ment cannot be challenged by the appellant.
R.M. RAMUAL v. STATE OF H.P. [DUTT, J.] 1019

So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the respon- A
dent No. 4 regarding the challenge of the seniority list after 11 years is
concerned, it may be pointed out that it is not correct that no challenge
was made by the appellant to the seniority list. ·Indeed, in the
Memorandum of the Commissioner, Department of Transport & ·
Tourism, Himachal Pradesh,' dated August· 7, 1973 addressed to '!he
appellant informing him of the decision of the Central Government to B
give to the appellant proforma promotion as Assistant Manager in the
scale of Rs.225-500 with retrospective effect referred to the appellant's
representation dated June 30, 197~. Apart from this representation,
the appellant had also made another earlier representation on June 3,
-1968 which has been admitted by the Government of Himachal
Pradesh in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit dated July 3, 1982 C
affirmed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Deputy
Secretary (Tourism) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. In the
circumstances, it is not correct to say that no representation was made
by the appellant.

It is true that the seniority list was prepared in 1971, but no D
prejudice was caused to the appellant by the seniority list,.asJie was
holding the position of District Public Relations Officer all through.
Moreover, the appellant was given proforma promotion by the
Government on or about August 7, 1973. It is only by the impugned
order dated April 28, 1982 that the Government accepted the rep-
resentation of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and directed that the inter E
se seniority of the. appellant and of the said respondents was to be
determined on the .basis of their substantive ranks on No~ember 1,
1966 and further directed that the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 would
rank senior to the appellant. The cause of action really arose to the
appellant for moving the writ petition after he was communicated with
the impugned order dated April 28, 1982. In our opinion, therefore, F
there has been no unreasonable delay on the part of the appellant to
challenge the impugned order and, consequently, the final seniority
list.

At this stage, it may be stated that some contentions have been
made on behalf of both the parties regarding the creation of the post of G
Assistant Manager in the Tourism Department under the rules framed
on December 7, 1967 relating to recruitment, promotion and service
conditions applicable to non-gazetted officers of the Department of
Tourism under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
It may also be noticed that the post of Assistant manager created
under the rules was subsequently abolished .. In our opinion, nothing H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A turns out on the creation or abolition of the post of Assistant Manager.

The next contention of Mr. Ghosh is that no promotion with ·
retrospective effect can be given to the· disadvantage of others. In
support of this contention, learned Counsel has placed much reliance
upon a decision of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Union of
B India, [ 1974] 3 SCR 907. In that case, a post was upgraded with
retrospective effect and it was held that the State Government of
Himachal Pradesh could not upgrade the post with retrospective effect
without the sanction of the Central Government under section 82(6) of
the Act. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the question of
upgradation of posts, but with proforma promotion given to the appel-
lant with retrospective effect, from November 1, 1966. The said deci-
c sion, in our opinion, has no application to, the facts of the instant case.

Next Mr. Ghosh has placed reliance upon another decision of
this Court in N. Subba Rao v. Union of India, (1973] 1 SCR 945. That
is a case under the States Reorganisation Act, 1955. It has been held
D that if there is any question of change of conditions of service, it will
have to be found out whether in the first place it amounts to change in
the conditions of service and, if so, secondly to find out whether there
was prior approval of the Central Government. One of the contentions
that was advanced before this Court in the said case was that the
retrospective regularisation and relaxation of rules by the State of
E Andhra Pradesh subsequent to the appointed day would amount to a
change in conditions of service and conferment of new advantages on
Andhra Pradesh Officers to the detriment of the Telengana Officers.
In the instant case, however, the question of regularisation and relexa-
tion of rules do not arise. What has been done in the present case is
that a glaring injustice was done to the appellant by taking into
F account his substantive rank as the Reception Officer on November 1,
1966 while, as a matter of fact, on that date he was holding the position
of District Public Relations Officer. That was done in violation of the
directions of the Central Government, and subsequently the Govern-
ment rectified the mistake by granting proforma promotion to the
appellant with effect from June 4, 1966 to the post of Assistant
G Manager equivalent to the post of District Public Relations Officer.

It is, however, submitted by Mr. Ghosh that as the previous
approval of the Central Government was not taken as required to be
taken under the proviso to section 82(6) of the Act, the Government
order as contained in the Memorandum dated August 7, 1983 read
· H with that contained in the Memorandum dated March 3, 1974, grant-
"'"~.-~~~~
;'f:''!!

. R.M'.'RAMUAL v. STAIB OF H.P. [D1.JTI, J I
'· -" ;_-
1021

ing proforma promotion to the appellant as Assistant Manager in the
scale of Rs.225-500 with retrospective effect from June 4, 1966 was
illegal. In order to consider this ·contention, we may refer to the provi-
sions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (-6) of section 82 of the Act which
provide as follows:

"82. Provisions relating to other Services. B
( 1) Every person who immediately ·before the
appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of
the existing State of.Punjab shall, on and from that day,
provisionally continue to serve in connection with the
affairs of the State of Punjab unless he is required, by
general or special order of the Central Government, to c
serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of any
other successor State.

-· (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the
Central Government shall, by general or special order,
determine the successor State to which every person refer-
red to in sub-section ( 1) shall be finally allotted for service
D

and the date with effect from which such allotment shall
take effect or be deemed to have taken effect.

(3) to (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E

(6) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect
on or after the appointed day the operation of the provi-
sions of Chapter I of Part KIV of the Constitution in rela-
tion to the determination of the conditions of service of F
persons serving in conne.ction with the affairs of the Union
of any State:

Provided that the conditions of se~vice applicable
immediately before the appointed day to the case of any
person ·referred to in sub-section ( 1) of sub-section (2) shall G
not lie varied to his disadvantage except with the previous
approval of the Central Government." ..

Under the proviso to sub-section (b), the conditions of service
applicable immediately before the appointed day to the case of any
,:, persons referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall not be H

I

'
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the
Central Government. Under sub-section(!) and sub-section (2), the
persons referred to are those who immediately before the appointed
day were serving in connection with the affairs of ·the then Staie of
Punjab. In other words, the respondents Nos. 4.and 6 come.within the
purview of sub-sections(!) and (2). In view of proviso to sub-section
B (6) of sectio.n 32, the conditions of service applicable immediately
before the appointed day to the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 could not be
varied to their disadvantage except with the previous approval of the
Central Government. The said order, granting proforma promotion to
the appellant to the post of Assistant Man~ger with effect from June 4,
1966, .does not at all vary the conditions of service of the respondents
Nos. 4 and 5 applicable to them immediately before the appointed day.
C There is, therefore, no question of taking the previous approval of the
Central Government as contemplated by section 82(6) of the Act.
Indeed, the said order was passed in rectification of the mistake com-
mitted by the Department of Tourism and/or the State Government
and for doing substantial justice to the appellant.
D We have already expressed our views as to the nature of the
seniority list and the manner in which it was prepared in violation of
the directions of the Central Government. The High Court has not
considered the directions of the Central Govenment as contained in
the said letter of the Joint Secretary dated February 14, 1967 and the
uttter violation of the same by .the Department and/cir the State
E Government in preparing the final selection list, as indicated above.
The High court, as already stated, has dismissed the writ petition of
the appellant principally on the ground that the seniority list once
finalised after integrating the persons working in the Tourism Depart-
ment and those coming from Punjab cannot be reopened to the disad-
vantage of the other persons without considering that the final senio-
F rity list was made· without complying with the directions of the Central
Government to the prejudice of the appellant. In the circumstances,
lhe judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.
For. the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. There will,
however, be no order as to costs. The impugned order dated April 28,
(1 1982 and the judgment of the High Court are set aside. The name of
the appellant shall be placed above that of the respondents Nos. 4 and
5 (since deceased)in the final seniority list.
The application of the interveners are also disposed of
accordingly.

H R.S.S. Appeal allowed.