# ' BISHAN CHAND & ORS v. SARABJIT SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1975] 1 S.C.R. 914
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-08-27
- **Bench:** Ray, K K Mathew
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bishan-chand-ors-v-sarabjit-singh-ors-6268
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Punjab Co-operative .Subordinate Service· Rules, 1936, Rules 5, 6 and 7Passing of depart1nental, examination basis for fixation of seniority-~organi
sation of Punjab State-Variation Of condition of service, if has the approval of
the Central Govt. as required under sec. 115(7) of States Reorganisation Act.
The appellants belonged to Pepsu Service, On 20th October, 1956 they held
been prom.oted from the position of Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors.
On 1 Nov.,
1956 there was the reorganisation of the State of Punjab.
Pepsu became
merged in Punjab. The appellants became integrated with other Inspectors
working in the State of Punjab.
Under the Punjab Co-operative Subordinate
Service Rules,
1936, seniority is dependent on the passing of departmental
examination. All the respondents who were shown senior to the appellants in
the gradation list dated 11 Marcil, 1966, had passed their departmental examination before the appellants passed their examination. The respondents were
all confirmed earlier than the appellants. The appellants passed the departmental examination after the respond•:nts had done so.
Therefore, the appellant~
A
B
c
were treated as juniors to the respondents.
[}
The appellants contended that the conditions of service have been varied to
their disadvantage without the previous approval of the Central Govt. as required under sec. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act.
Rejecting the appeal,
'
),,
~
/.
HELD : It follows from paragraphs 2. 3 and 6 of the memorandum of the
Central Govt. dated 11 May, 1957 that as far as departmental examination i~
E
concerned the Central Govt. told the State Governments that they might, if they
so desired change the conditions of service
and for this purpose th:::y might
t
assume the previous approval of the Central Govt. as required by the proviso·
to sec. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act. This Court has held that this
memorandum of Central Govt. amounted to previous approval withln the 1n(!an·
ing of sec. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act.
(917 B-D]
N. Raghavendra Rao v. Deputy Co1nn1issiorier South Kanara Mangalore,
(1964)7 S.C,R, 549 and Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors, v, Union of India &
F
Ors, [1975] 1 S,CR, 449 relied on,
The condition of servii;e in regard to passing of departmental examination
for the yurpose of promotion is. therefore, fully clothed with the previous ap·
proval of the Central Govt.
The appellants also appeared in the examination.
They availed of the same method of promotion.
They have suffered n:i prejudice
because they passed
the departmental
examination
later than
the
respondents,
[917 Fl
CIVIL APPELLATE JuR•SDJCTION : Civil Appeal No, 1452 of 1973,
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment & Order dated the
8th September 1971 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P,
A. No. 689 of I 970,
V. C, Ma/wJan,
M. R, Agnifwtri and Urmi!a Sirur, for the
appollants;
R. K. Garg, S. C, Agarwa 'a, S, S, Bhatnagar and V, J. Francis,
for respondents Nos, l, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 17.
G
H
••
!;·
li<
•
-
.-;,;
A
R
BISHAN V. SARABJIT (Ray. C.J.)
O.P. Sharma, for R.N. Sachthey for respondent No. 11.
T.V.S.N. Chari, for respondent (Davinder Bahr.dur).

## Text

914
, .
'
BISHAN CHAND & ORS.
v.
SARABJIT SINGH & ORS,
August 27, 1974
[A. N, RAY, CJ, AND K K MATHEW, J,j
Punjab Co-operative .Subordinate Service· Rules, 1936, Rules 5, 6 and 7Passing of depart1nental, examination basis for fixation of seniority-~organi
sation of Punjab State-Variation Of condition of service, if has the approval of
the Central Govt. as required under sec. 115(7) of States Reorganisation Act.
The appellants belonged to Pepsu Service, On 20th October, 1956 they held
been prom.oted from the position of Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors.
On 1 Nov.,
1956 there was the reorganisation of the State of Punjab.
Pepsu became
merged in Punjab. The appellants became integrated with other Inspectors
working in the State of Punjab.
Under the Punjab Co-operative Subordinate
Service Rules,
1936, seniority is dependent on the passing of departmental
examination. All the respondents who were shown senior to the appellants in
the gradation list dated 11 Marcil, 1966, had passed their departmental examination before the appellants passed their examination. The respondents were
all confirmed earlier than the appellants. The appellants passed the departmental examination after the respond•:nts had done so.
Therefore, the appellant~
A
B
c
were treated as juniors to the respondents.
[}
The appellants contended that the conditions of service have been varied to
their disadvantage without the previous approval of the Central Govt. as required under sec. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act.
Rejecting the appeal,
'
),,
~
/.
HELD : It follows from paragraphs 2. 3 and 6 of the memorandum of the
Central Govt. dated 11 May, 1957 that as far as departmental examination i~
E
concerned the Central Govt. told the State Governments that they might, if they
so desired change the conditions of service
and for this purpose th:::y might
t
assume the previous approval of the Central Govt. as required by the proviso·
to sec. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act. This Court has held that this
memorandum of Central Govt. amounted to previous approval withln the 1n(!an·
ing of sec. 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act.
(917 B-D]
N. Raghavendra Rao v. Deputy Co1nn1issiorier South Kanara Mangalore,
(1964)7 S.C,R, 549 and Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors, v, Union of India &
F
Ors, [1975] 1 S,CR, 449 relied on,
The condition of servii;e in regard to passing of departmental examination
for the yurpose of promotion is. therefore, fully clothed with the previous ap·
proval of the Central Govt.
The appellants also appeared in the examination.
They availed of the same method of promotion.
They have suffered n:i prejudice
because they passed
the departmental
examination
later than
the
respondents,
[917 Fl
CIVIL APPELLATE JuR•SDJCTION : Civil Appeal No, 1452 of 1973,
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment & Order dated the
8th September 1971 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P,
A. No. 689 of I 970,
V. C, Ma/wJan,
M. R, Agnifwtri and Urmi!a Sirur, for the
appollants;
R. K. Garg, S. C, Agarwa 'a, S, S, Bhatnagar and V, J. Francis,
for respondents Nos, l, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 17.
G
H
••
!;·
li<
•
-
.-;,;
A
R
BISHAN V. SARABJIT (Ray. C.J.)
O.P. Sharma, for R.N. Sachthey for respondent No. 11.
T.V.S.N. Chari, for respondent (Davinder Bahr.dur).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'915
RAY, C.J.-This appeeJ is by special leave from the judgment
dated 8 September, 1971 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The principal question raisod in
this appeal is whether
the appellants are wrongly shown as junior to the respondents.
The respondents have been treated to be senior to the appellants
on the basis cf the Punjab Co-operative Subordinate Service Rules,
1936 hereinafter referred to as the 1936 Rules. Under the 1936
Rules seniority is dependent on the passing of departmental cxamina.
tion. The appellants passed the departmental examination after
the respondents had done so. Therefore, the appellants are treated
as junior to the respondents.
.
The appellants belonged to Pepsu Senice. On 20 October, 1956,
the appellants had been rromoted from the position of Sub-Irspectors
D
to Inspectors On l November, I 956 there was the reorganisation
of the State of Punjab. Pcpsu became merged in Punjab. The
appellants became integrated with other Inspectors working in the
State of Punjab.
On I March, 1957 the appellants were reverted.from the position
of Inspector to Sub-Inspector. On 11 April, 1957 the appellants
. E
were promoted again to the position of Inspector.
The appellmts contend that the 1936 Rules did not apply to Pepsu
before the merger, and, therefore, the conditions of service could not
be varied to their disadvantage after the i1'tegration without the previous approval of the Central Government as provided by secticn I 15(7
of the States Reorganisation Act. The appellants also contend that
F
they have lost one month and eleven days on account of reversion
from the position of Inspector to Sub-Inspector between I March,
1957 and 11 April, 1957.
G
H
The gradation list was published on l I March, 1966. The seniority
list was prepared on the basis of 1936 Rules. Rule 5 of the 1936
Rules states that all candidates for the post of Inspectors and SubInspectors of Co-operative Industrial Societies shall undergo such
training and shall pass such examination as the Registrar may prescribe. Rule 6 of the 1936 Rules, inter alia, states that the seniority
of Inspector candidates recruited from Sub-Inspectors of Co-operative Industrial Societies and Sub-Inspectors of the Punjab Co-operative Union will first be determined by the date of passing the departmental examination. If two or more candidates passed the examination on the same date, seniority will be determined by the length
of service as Sub-Inspector. Rule 7 of the 1936 Rules states that the
seniority of Inspectors in the 4th grade will be determined by the date
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975) l S.C.R.
of confirmation. In the third and higher grades of Inspectors, seniority will be determined by the date of confirmaticn in the respective
grades.
On I November, 1956 the a)'pellants as well ~s the respondents
were all officiating Inspectors. Some of the appellants passed their
departmental examination in January, 1959 and some in May, 1961.
Some of the respondents passed their departmental examination in
February, 1957 and the others in March, 1958. All the respor.dents
who we1e shown senior to the appellants in the gradation list dated
11 March, 1966 had passed their departmental examir.ation before the
appellants passed their examination.
A
B
The respondents were all confirmed earlier than the appdlants.
The confirmation of the respondents took place before 1964. In the
C
High Court it was conceded by the appellants that the respondtnts
had been confirmed earlier than the appellants. The High Court
found that the seniority list was prepared on this basis. In the case of
confirmed Inspectors the date of confirmation gives the seniority.
In the case of Inspectors who were not confirmed the date of passing
the departmental examination was taken to be the basis of seniority.
The position of Inspectors in the integrated seniority list of the former
D
Punjab and Pepsu employees as on I November, 1956 was kept intact.
In the case of promoted Inspectors selected in the same batch seniority
on the basis of the seniority position as Sub-Inspectors
was fixed.
All the respondents who were shown senior to the appellants passed
their departmental examination long before the appellants did.
The contention of the appellants that conditions of service have been
varied to their disadvantage without the previous approval of the Central Government is utterly unsound.
The Central Government on 11 May, 1957 addressed a memorandum No. S.O. SRDI-T-ARM-57 to all State Governments. Paragraph 2 of the memorandum states that the question of protection to
be afforded in the matter of var ous service conditions to personnel
affected by reorganisation was discussed with the State representatives
at conferences held with them. After careful consideration of the views
expressed at these conferences, the Central Government had decided
that the conditions of service in regard to substantive pay of permanent
and temporary employees, speeial pay, leave rules, pension, provident
fund and dearness allowance applicable to personnel affected by the
reorganisation immediately prior to the appointed day should be prctected. But so far as conditions of service in regard to travelling
allowances, discipline, control, classification, appeal, cor.duct, probation and departmental promotion were concerned, it would not be
appropriate to provide any protection in the matter of these conditions.
That is stated in paragraph 3 of the memorandum. Paragraph 6 of
the memorandum stated that in respect of conditions of service as had
been specifically dealt w.ith in the proceeding paragraphs of the memorandum, it would be open to the State Governments to take action
in accordance with the decisions conveyed therein and so long as the
State Governments acted in conformity with those decisions, they
E
F
G
H
\.
+
....
A
B
c
0
F
G
•
BISHAN V. SARABJIT (Ray, C.J.)
917
might assume the Central Government approval in terms of the proviso to section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act. In all other
cases involving condition of service not specifically co\ered in the
proceeding paragraphs, it would be necessary for the State Govern.
ment in terms of section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act
before any action was taken to vary the previous conditions of service
of an employe~ to his disadvantage.
It therefore follows from paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of the aforesaid
memorandum that as far as departmental promotion is concerned the
Central Government told the State Governments that they might,
if they so desired, change the conditions of service and for this purpose
they might assume the previous approval of the Central Government
as required by the proviso to section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act.
In N.A. Raghavendra Rao v. Deputy Commissioner South Kanara,
Mangalore
(1)
a
question
arose
as
to
whether
the
Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Recruit·
ment Rules, 1959 were made with the previous approval of the Central
Government under the proviso to section 115, sub-section (7) of the
States Reorganisation Act. It was held there that the memorandum
of the Central Government dated 11 May, 1957 amounted to previous
approval within the meaning of section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act. The Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate
Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1959 were therefore held to he validly
made.
The decision in
RaghaPendra Rao's (1) case has
been
relied
on and applied in the recent decision in writ petition No. 385 of 1969
and other Writ Petitions : Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. (2).
The condition of service in regard to passing of departmental examination for the purpose of promotion is, therefore, fully clothed with
the previous approval of the Central Government. The appellants
also appeared in the examination. They availed of the same method
of promotion. They have suffered no prejudice because they passed
the dnartment1l examination later than the respondents.
For these reasons we are of opinion that there is no merit in the
contention of the apPellants. They have been rightly treated as junior
to the respondents. That is the correct position in law as well as in
the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the fact that the
parties were directed to bear their own costs throughcut in the High
Court we make a similar order that they will pay and bear their own
costs in this appeal.
V.M.K.
Appeal dismissed.
( I) 1961[ 7 S.C.R. 549.
(21 [1975] I S.C.R. 449.