# N. SUBBA RAO ETC v. UNION OF INDIA & OTIIERS August 23, 19n

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 945
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 2436 to 2439 of 1969
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, A. N. Ray, I. D. Dua, D. D. PALEKAll, M. H. Beg
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/n-subba-rao-etc-v-union-of-india-otiiers-august-23-19n-5747
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Tiu Stat~s J~eorganisation Act, 1955, s. I 15-Powers of Ct'ntral Govl'rn1nent
under-Effect of.. proviso
to- s.
115 (7)-Qll'!.\fion
whether
State Government l•IJS changed conditions of S'-TYice within rhe n1eani111?
of the proviso is a question to be decided by
Central Governrnenl·-
Natural justice-Central Govt. order pated
22/24' Dec. 1965
wliethcr
invalid becau:te of deni.'1 of natural fusrice.
The State of Andhra Pradesh which came into existence U.'lder the
States Reorganisation Act 1956 was formed out of the former State of
Andhra and the Telcogana area of the former State of Hyderabad, The
appellants were en&inceI1! in the employment of Andhra State.
On the
formation of the State of Andbra Prad"sh the appeHa11ts under the provisions of the Act continued to •erve the State of Andhra Pradesh. The
respondents who were Telengana Officers in the
employment of the
State of Hyderabad continued to. •erve the State of Andhra Prade•h.
Prior to the reorganisation a Conference of Chief Secretaries was held
in the months of April and M:1y 1956, and certain principles were laid
Jo.,.•n for the equation of posb in the two services namely, the servitc~
of Andhra State and Hyderabad State which were -to be allocated to the
State of Andhra Pradc:;h. ~nJ~ far;tors to be taken into consideratio;, for
the fixation of inter :.·e seniority of officers
holding
equivalent
posts
\Vere laid down.
In -determining the length of continuous sen-ice per!od!
f1>; \Vhich an appoiui.n-It-;nt was held in. a pureiy stop-gap or fortuitOUt;.
, a1'·nngcmcnt were to be excluded. Ia. November 1961 the State Govern1111.;:tt of } .. odhra Pradesh, prep:::1\e<l a provi,:onal common gradatio::i list of
gazett·ed officers in the Public Works Department. The Telengana cnginr~rs challenged- the lists in the High Court and this Court. The rcst:lt
of the litigation was that the Central
Goven1ment was asked to . ta};.e
immediate steps to finalise the list of integration in the manner prescribed
in s. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act 1956 on the materials placed
before it by the State Government. The Central' Government after con-
.sic.lcrh·,g representations made by the -officer, of the Telengana area and
the Andhra State gave on December 24, I 96.:> its final decision concer.,ing
the equation of pasts· and i.,,:er 1e seniority of officers holding equivalent
μost•.
In its decision the Central Government Inter alia pointed out h .. t
the action taken by the Government of Andhra Prndesh in regularising
with retrospective effect and in relaxation of lhe normal rules, the tem·
porary appointments made in the erstwhile Andhra SL,,te to the posts of
.A<;sistant Engineers a-d Executive E.,ginecr!: by pron1otion from the
. next lower categary . of officers, had tile effect of altering the service conditions of Andhra employees to the dcteriment of the interest of the
c1nployees from the Telenga11a unit and was therefore invalid. The Andhra
Pfndcsh Government 01·ad~ a· stro.,g represerftation to the Central Government cJefcndin'l such regularisation. The Central Government by order
doted 22/24 Dc:cmbcr. 1966, in partial modificaf.ion of the order dated
December 24, 1965. accepted the· retrospectiVc
regulari~ation of serv;ce
in respect of certain classes of offtccrs. In the consequent writ petition
n!c<l l>y the Telengana and Andbra Officers ·the Hi~b Court inter alia
held: (i) that the decision of the Government of.India dated 22/24 1966
ll-L172 Sup C!i7J
946
SUPREMI! COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
was liable to be quashed on the ground that it violated the principles of
natural justice and (ii) that the temporary promotion of Executive Engineers
and Assistant Engineers in the Andhra State prior to November I, 1956
were stop.gap and fortuitous arrangements, The High Court did not give
any decision on the merits of the question of retrospecti\" regularisation
of tlce servic-zs of the Andhra Engineers on the equation of posts.
In
nppeals to this Court by ·certificate,
HELD : The

## Text

},
);
c
ll
F
c;
H
N. SUBBA RAO ETC.
v
UNION OF INDIA & OTIIERS
August 23, 19n
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J., A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA, D. D. PALEKAll
AND M. H. BEG, JJ.]
Tiu Stat~s J~eorganisation Act, 1955, s. I 15-Powers of Ct'ntral Govl'rn1nent
under-Effect of.. proviso
to- s.
115 (7)-Qll'!.\fion
whether
State Government l•IJS changed conditions of S'-TYice within rhe n1eani111?
of the proviso is a question to be decided by
Central Governrnenl·-
Natural justice-Central Govt. order pated
22/24' Dec. 1965
wliethcr
invalid becau:te of deni.'1 of natural fusrice.
The State of Andhra Pradesh which came into existence U.'lder the
States Reorganisation Act 1956 was formed out of the former State of
Andhra and the Telcogana area of the former State of Hyderabad, The
appellants were en&inceI1! in the employment of Andhra State.
On the
formation of the State of Andbra Prad"sh the appeHa11ts under the provisions of the Act continued to •erve the State of Andhra Pradesh. The
respondents who were Telengana Officers in the
employment of the
State of Hyderabad continued to. •erve the State of Andhra Prade•h.
Prior to the reorganisation a Conference of Chief Secretaries was held
in the months of April and M:1y 1956, and certain principles were laid
Jo.,.•n for the equation of posb in the two services namely, the servitc~
of Andhra State and Hyderabad State which were -to be allocated to the
State of Andhra Pradc:;h. ~nJ~ far;tors to be taken into consideratio;, for
the fixation of inter :.·e seniority of officers
holding
equivalent
posts
\Vere laid down.
In -determining the length of continuous sen-ice per!od!
f1>; \Vhich an appoiui.n-It-;nt was held in. a pureiy stop-gap or fortuitOUt;.
, a1'·nngcmcnt were to be excluded. Ia. November 1961 the State Govern1111.;:tt of } .. odhra Pradesh, prep:::1\e<l a provi,:onal common gradatio::i list of
gazett·ed officers in the Public Works Department. The Telengana cnginr~rs challenged- the lists in the High Court and this Court. The rcst:lt
of the litigation was that the Central
Goven1ment was asked to . ta};.e
immediate steps to finalise the list of integration in the manner prescribed
in s. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act 1956 on the materials placed
before it by the State Government. The Central' Government after con-
.sic.lcrh·,g representations made by the -officer, of the Telengana area and
the Andhra State gave on December 24, I 96.:> its final decision concer.,ing
the equation of pasts· and i.,,:er 1e seniority of officers holding equivalent
μost•.
In its decision the Central Government Inter alia pointed out h .. t
the action taken by the Government of Andhra Prndesh in regularising
with retrospective effect and in relaxation of lhe normal rules, the tem·
porary appointments made in the erstwhile Andhra SL,,te to the posts of
.A<;sistant Engineers a-d Executive E.,ginecr!: by pron1otion from the
. next lower categary . of officers, had tile effect of altering the service conditions of Andhra employees to the dcteriment of the interest of the
c1nployees from the Telenga11a unit and was therefore invalid. The Andhra
Pfndcsh Government 01·ad~ a· stro.,g represerftation to the Central Government cJefcndin'l such regularisation. The Central Government by order
doted 22/24 Dc:cmbcr. 1966, in partial modificaf.ion of the order dated
December 24, 1965. accepted the· retrospectiVc
regulari~ation of serv;ce
in respect of certain classes of offtccrs. In the consequent writ petition
n!c<l l>y the Telengana and Andbra Officers ·the Hi~b Court inter alia
held: (i) that the decision of the Government of.India dated 22/24 1966
ll-L172 Sup C!i7J
946
SUPREMI! COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
was liable to be quashed on the ground that it violated the principles of
natural justice and (ii) that the temporary promotion of Executive Engineers
and Assistant Engineers in the Andhra State prior to November I, 1956
were stop.gap and fortuitous arrangements, The High Court did not give
any decision on the merits of the question of retrospecti\" regularisation
of tlce servic-zs of the Andhra Engineers on the equation of posts.
In
nppeals to this Court by ·certificate,
HELD : The High Court ·correctly h£ld that the order of the Central
Government dated 22/24 December 1966 was made without giving the
Telengana area Officers any opportunity of making representation against
the course of action which the Central Government adopted by that deci·
sion.
The order was liable to be quash£d. [954H-955Al
It was not necessary to express any opinion as to whether the services
of Andhra State Officers were stop·gap or fortuitous arrangements. Under
the States Reorganisation Act power is conferred on the Central Government to bring about the integration of services in the State of Andhra
Pradesh by ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected
by the provisions of s. 115 of the Act. The observations of the High
Court on the temporary service of the Andhra Officers to be stop-gap or
fortuitous arrangements must therefore be set aside. [955H]
In Raghavendra Rao's case this Court soid that the
broad pul'pose
underlying the proviso to s. 115 (7) of the Act was. to ensure that the
conditions of service should not be changed except with the prior ap·
vroval of the Central Government under Art. 309 of the Constitution the
power of the State is preserved to make rules. The proviso to s. 115(7)
of the Act imposes a l;mitation on the Stato not to vary the contitions of
service applicable immediately before November I. 1956 to
the
disadvantage of persons mentioned in sub-sections (I) or (2) of s. 115 of
the .Act. If there is any question of change of cond'tions of service it
will liave 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. It will be within the
province of the decision of the Central Government under s. 115 of the
Act in regard to the integration of services and ensuring fair and equitable treatment to all persons to determine the retrospective regularisa·
tion and relaxation of rules will amouot to any change in the conditions
of service or will result in denial of fair and equitable treatment to any of
the persons affected thereby. [957C-958B]
[Central Government directed to prooeed with the integration of services of Telenga.,a area Officers and Andhra State Officer<& and to determine the principles governing the equation of posts and to preparo gradation lists after giving opportunity to the persons affected to make their
representations.]
Union of India & Anr. v. P. K. Roy & Ors. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 186 and
N. Raghavendra Rao v. Deputy Conimission.r, South Ka~ara, Mangalore
jl964] 7 S.C.R. 549, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2436
to 2439 of 1969.
•
,\
II
c
D
E.
F
I
Appeals from the jude:rnent and orders dated February 23.
H
1'1)68 of the Andhra Pradesh Hie:h Court at Hyderabad in Writ
Petitions Nos. 1363 of 1966, 799, 833 and 1439 of 1967 res_pectively.
B
c
D
E
G
H
N, SUBDA RAO V. UNION (Ray, J.)
947
D. V. Patel, Y. Suryanarayallll, M. J. Rao, P. L. N. Sharma
and G. Narayana Rao for the appellants (in all appeals).
Jagadislz Sw:m1p, Solicitor-General of India, S. N. Prasad and
S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 1 (in C.As. Nos. 2436 & 2439/
69) Respondent No. 113 (in C.A. No. 2437 /69) and Respondent
No. 10 (in C.A. No. 2438169).
P. Ram Reddy and K. Jayaram, for respondent No. 2, (in
C.A. No. 24~6 & 2439169) Respondent No. 14 (in C.A. No.
2437169) and Respondent No. 9 (in C.A. No. 2438169).
H. S. Gururaja Rao and S. Markhandeya, for respondents Nos.
3-38 : (in C.A. No. 2436169), for respondents Nos. 1-12 (in
C.A. No. 2437169) and respondents Nos. 1-8 (in C.A.
No.
2438/69) !
, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, J. These four appeals are by certificate from the
common judgment da•ted 23 February, 1968 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The subject-matter of these appeals relates to the equation
of posts and integration of services of officers of the Public
Works Departrnem in the State o.f Andhra Pradesh consequent
on the reorganisation of States in the year 1956.
On 1 November, 1956 the State of Andhra Pradesh came
into existence under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The State of Andhra Pradesh
was formed out of the former State of Andhra and the Telengana
area of the former Hyderabad State (hereinafter referred to as
the Andhra State and the Telengana area).
The appellants were Engineers in the employment of Andhra
State.
O.n the formation of the. State of Andhra Pradesh the
appellants under the provisions of the Act continued to serve
the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The respondents who were
Telengana officers in the employme.ut of the State of Hyderabad
continued to serve the State of Andhra. Pradesh.
Prior to the reorganisation a Conference of Chief Secretaries
was held.in the mo,nths of April and May, 1956. It was agreed
at the Conference' that four principles should be followed for
equation of posts in the two services, namely, the services of
Andhra State and Hyderabad which were to be allocated to the
State of Andhra Pradesh. These four principles were: first, the
nature and duties of a past; second, the responsibilities and power<
948
SUPREME COURT .REPORTS
[1973) 1 S.C.R.
exercised by the officers holding a post; the extent of territorial
or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; · third, the
minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for the two posts and
fourthly, the salary of the post.
In regard to the fixation of the inter-se seniority of officers
holding equivalent posts it was agreed that three factors 'should
be taken into consideration.
The first was the Jergth of continuous service whether temporary or permanent in a particular
grade.
This length c.ould exclude periods for which an appointment is held in a purely stop-gap or fortuitous arrangement.
The second consideration was the age of the person, other factors being equal, for instance, seniority might be determined on
the basis of age. Thirdly, as far as possible, the inter-st: seniority
of officers drawn from the same State should not be disturbed.
The Central Govermrent in th~ month of September, 1956
directed the State Government to draw up provisional common
gradation list keeping in view the general principles agreed to
at the Conference of the Chief Secretaries.
It may be stated that out of the former State o.f Hyderabad
some areas were transferred to Mysore and some to Dotnbay
which became Maharashtra and the Telengana area became part
Di the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Under the Slate; Reorganis·i. ·Jn Act the questions relating
lo equa1ion of posts and integration of services of the employees
of Andhra and Hyderabad States are to be decided finally by the
Central Government. Section 115 of the Act in sub-section ( 5)
provides that the Cen•ral Governmer.•t may by order establish
one or more Advisory Cornmitlecs for the purpose of assistir.g it
in regard to (a) the division and integration of services arnon~
the new Sta1es and the State of Andhra Pradesh and Madras,
and (b) the ensuring of fair awl equitable tre1tment to all
persons affected by tlie provisions of this section and the proper
consideration of any represcn· ations made by sueh persons.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh constituted Advisory
Committees for i2tegration 'of services of Andhra and Hyderabad
States and preparation of common gradation lists for all service
personnel in Andhra Pradesh.
There were 1wo Advisory Committees.
One was
with
respect
to
the
gazetted
staff
and the other with respect to non-gazetted staff.
The con•
clusions of the Advisory Committees were reviewed by the State
Government and the opinion of the Cen1ral Government was
>ought and adopted by the State Government on decisiom to be
taken.
c
L
r
G
H
B
c
D
F
G
H
N, SUBBA RAO V. UNION (Ray, J.)
949
Thereafter in the month of April, 1957 the Government of
India infonnef! the State Government of its decision to establish
two Advisory Committees one at the Centre and the other in the
State for assisting the Central Government in dealing with all
representations from service personnel affected by the reorgani-
~ation.
Following the recommendation of the Advisory Committee
on the integration of gazetted services of Public Works Department and the suggestions made b!Y the Government of India the
State Governme;nt in the month of December, 1960 laid down
certain principles for integration of services and preparation of
common gradation list of Andhra and Hyderabad personnel
belonging to gazetted Engineering Service of the Public Works
Department,
The State Governmt111t prepared a provisional
common gradation list of gazetted officers in the month .of
November, 1961.
The Telengana Engineers challenged the commQn gradation
list by writ petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The
Telengana Engineers d1allenged the equation of posts of the_
Sub-Engineers and Divisional Engineers to the posts of Assistant
E!lgineers and Executive Engineers respectively in Andhra and
the fixation of their inter se seniority.
The grievance of the
Telengana Engineers was that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had given preference to personnel of Andhra State by
retrospectively relaxing rules in respect of probation as well as
qualification in favour of Andhra · Engineers.
According to the
Telengana Engineers the result of the relaxation of rules was
that Andhra Engineers who could not be c011sidered senior to
'Felengana Engineers on the appointed day, namely, 1 November 1956 were given seniority.
The High Court in the month
of July, 1964 dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that
Telcngana Engineers had an alternative remedy by way of representation to the Central Government under section 115 ( 5) of
the Act.
The Telengana Engineers thereafter filed petitions for special
leave to appeal to this Court against the judgmen1 of the Andhra
Pradesh Court. The Telerigana Engineers also filed petitions in
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
On 22 January, 1965 this Court dismissed the Writ Petitions and gave leave
to the Telengana Engineers to withdraw the petitions for special .
leave.
This Court in passing the orders said, "We hope and
trust that the Central Government will take immediate steps to
finalise the list of integration in the manner prescribed in section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the State
Government will take expeditious steps to place all the necessary
materials before it."
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973) l S.C.R.
The Central Government thereafter on 24 December, 196$
after considering the representations made by the personnel of
both the Telengana area and the Andhra State gave its final
decision concerning the equation of posts and inter se seniority
A
of officers holding equivalent pos·ts.
Broadly stated, the Central
Government equalised the posts of Andhra State and Telengana
area under four categories.
In the first category were placed
Chief Engineers of Andhra and Teleogana. In the second category were placed Superintending Engineers of both the places.
The third category went to Executive Engineers of Andhra and
Execu,ive Engineer as well as Divisional Engineer of Telengaria
area.
The Divisional Engineers of Telengana area were to be
placed en bloc at the end of third category. In the fourth cate-
. gory were placed the Assistant Engineers of Andhra and TeienC
gana and thereafter sub-Engineer and Sub-Divisional Officer of
Telengana.
As to Sub-Engineers of Tclengana area the decision was tuat they were to be placed en bloc below the Assistant
Engineers from both the regions of Andhra and Telengana.
Again, the Sub-Divisional Officers were to be placed en bloc at
- the bottom of the category.
I>
Apart from·· equalisation of posts the Central Government
laid down four principles with regard to inter se seniority, First,
it was said that the pr;i-probation service rendered by the Andhra
Officers which dirl not count for increments in the parent State
should not be ta'.cen into account for determining their ImerE
State seniority in the integrated gradation list of the Engineer
Officers of the Public Works Department of the Reorganised
State.
The second principle was that as for the Executive E)lgineers from Hyderabad, the service rendered as Divisional Engineers should not be counted towards their seniority in the cadre
of Executive Engineers. The third principle is the bone of conF
tention between the Andhra Officers and the Telengana Officers.
The Government of India decided that the action taken by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh in regularising wHh retrospective effect and in relaxation c~ the normal rules, the tempofary
appointments made in the erstwhile Andhra State to the posts
of Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers by promotion G
from the next lower category of officers has the effect of altering the service conditions of Andhra employees to the detriment
of the interest of the employees from the Telengana unit Taking
1his and other connected factors into account the Government
of India . decided that action taken by the Andhra Pradesh Government in this regard is not in order and the representations
H
submitted against these orders should be accepted.
The fourth
principle was that Class I status of the Hyderabad Assistant Engineers might be protected as personal to them.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
N. SUBBA RAO v. UNION (Ray, J.)
951
Thereafter the Andhra Pradesh Government on 17 March,
L 966 made a strono representation to t:1e Central Government
defending as essentlal the retrospective regularisatjon of the
services of the personnel belonging to the former State of Andhra.
The State of Andhra Pradesh said that it was valid and proper
to take into consideration the continuous service of the Andhra
employees from a date anterior to 1 Novemb~r. 1956.
The Government of. India on 14 June, 1966 reiterated its
earlier decision dated 24 December, 1965 and was of the view
that it was not possible to alter the decision already taken against
the action of regularisation with retrospective effect.
The Andhra employees thereupon filed writ petition No. 1363
of 1966 being Civil Appeal No. 2436 of 1969 questioning th~
decision of the Government of India dated 14 June, 1966.
Subsequent to the fillng of the writ petition by the Andhra
employees the Government of India on 22/24 December, 1966
gave a decision to the effect that the continuous service of some
of the Andhra officers prior to 1 November, 1956 should be
taken into account in determining the inter se seniority of the
officers.
This decision was in favour of some of the Andbra
officers and was in partial modification Of the decisiQII of the
Government of India dated 24 December, 1965 and reiterated
on 14 June, 1966.
The qecision of the Government of India dated 221..i4
December, 1966 was that the Central Government classified
Assistant Engineers of Andhra State whose services were regularised with retrospective effect into three cate$ories.
The first
category was in respect of those Assistant Engineers of Andhra
State who had satisfactorily completed their probation in the
lower post and had also put in the required number of years of
service in the lower cadre on the date on which they were promoted as Assistant Engineers and whose cases could not be r~
ferred to the Public Service Commission in time because of administrative delay.
In. the second category fell those who had
satisfactorily completed their probation in the lower post btut
had noi .completed the requisite number of years of service in
the lower cadre on the date on which they were promoted as
Assistant Engineers but completed the minimum required se·vice
for promotion on some dates before 1 November, 1956. In
the third category were placed those who had either not satisfactorily completed their probation in the lower cadre and/or
had not completed the required number of years of service in
the lower cadre on the date on which they were promoted as
Assistant Engineers and also had not completed the minimum
required service for promotion on anv date before 1 November.
1956.
952
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] J S.C.lt.
.
The decision of the Government of India dated 22/24
De~~ber, 1966 was that the Central Government had no
ob1ection to retrospective regularisation of the services of the
officers falling under the first category.
With regard to the
· second category the Central Gcvernment had no objection to
the regularisation of the services of tbe officers falling under that
category provid~d that their services were regularised not from
the dates on which they \\-ere promoted as Assistant Engineers
but from the dates on which they were eligible for promotion
under the normal rules.
In o;her words, the services· of officers
c
in the second category might be regularised with effect from the
dates prior to 1 November, 1956 on which they completed the
minimum n_umber oi years of service in the lower cadre necessary for promotion as Assistant Engineer!!,
As regards the officers falling under the third category the Central Government
decide j ¢hat their services might not be regularised from dates
priqr to 1 November, 1956. The Central Government however
said that the officers in the third category should be included
along with their confreres from the Telengana area of Hyderabad in accordance with the prescribed principles and procedure.
Thereafter those in the third category should take their tum i11 · !)
accordance with their seniority in the final list for promotion
to the post of Assistant Engineers.
The Telengana area officers filed thre~ writ petitions in the
Andllfa Pradesh High Court.
These were numbered 799, 833
and 896 of 1967.
In writ petition No. 799 of 1967 the Telengana area officers asked for mandamus directing the respondents
to treat the post of Sub-Engineer of Telengana area as equivalent
to the post of A>sistant Engineer of· Andhra St~te and integrate
the services ot Sul:>-Engineers of Telengana area and Assistant
Engineers of Andhra State according to 1he agreed principle11
at the Chief Secretaries in the months of April and May, 1956.
The Telengana area officers also asked for an order quashing
the decision of the Government of India dated 22/24 Decem·
ber, 1966 approving the retrospective regularisation and relaxation of rules in regard to temporary appointments by the Andhra
State to the post of Assistant Engineers.
In writ petition No. 833 of 1967 the Telengana area officeri
asked lor mandamus directing the respondents to treat the posbi
of Executive Engineers ol Telengana area as equivalent . to the
posts of Executive Engineers (Special Grade) of Andhra State
and to trea1 the post of Divisional Engineers of Telengana
region as equivalent to the post of Executive Engineer (Ordinary
Grade) of Andhra region and to integrate their services accord·
ing to the agreed principles at the Chief Secretaries Conference
in the months of April and May, 1956. The Telengana officers
F
G
A
c
F
,,
.,,
H
N. SUBBA RAO V. UNION (Ray, J.)
953
also asked for orders quashing the decision dated 22/24 December, 1966 of the Govemme .. t of India approving th;, regularisa,
tion with 'retrospective effect and relaxation of the normal rule5
with regard to temporary appointments made by Andhra State to
the post of Executive Engineer and by promotion from the next
lower category of officers.
In writ· petition No. 896 of 1967 the Telengana area officers asked for mandanws directing the respondents to treat the
posts of Assistant Engineers of Telengana region as a clasii
superior to the post of Andhra State Engineers and the post of
Sub-Engineers and Sub-Divisional Officers of Hyderabad State
as equivalent to the· post of Assistant Engineers of Andhra Stak
and to integrate the services of the personnel of the two regions
by adhering to the agreed principles at the .Chief Secretaries Conference in the months of April and May, 1956. The Telengana
area officers also asked for an order quashing the decision dated
22/24 December, 1966 of the Government of India approving
the retrospective regularisation and relaxation of normal mles
with regard to temporary appointments made in Andhra State
to the post of Assistant Engineers and by promotion from the
next lower category of officers.
The Andhra officers filed writ petition No. 1439 of 1967
and asked for order quashing the decision dated ?2/24 Decem ·
her, 1966 of the Government of India in so far ·;.; it related to
rejection of regularisation with retrospective effect of officers of
Andhra State falling under categories (b) and ( c) mentioned
in that decision.
The High Court by a common judgment dealt with writ petitions No. 1363 of 1966 and 1439 of 1967 filed by the Andhra
officers and writ petitions No. 799, 833 and 896 of 1967 filed
by the Telengana area Qfficers. The decision of the Governme11t
Of India dated 22/24 December, 1966 was quashed on the
ground that it suffered from the vice of denial of principles of
natural justice to the Telengana area officers.
The High Court
said that it was open to the Government of India to adhere to
its previous decisions of 24 December, l 96S and 14 June, 1966
or to vary the decisions but the Central Government was to give
an opportunity to the services effected to make their representa.
tions.
The High Court further said that if the Central Government wanted to vary the earlier decisions of 24 December 1965
and 14 June, 1966 then all the services effected should be given
an opportunity to make their representations. The Central
Government was in that case in consultation with {he Central
Advisory Board to lay down principles of equation of posts and
fixation of inter-re seniority and to finalise the preparation of
common gradation lists.
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973) l S.CR.
The High Court did not however give any decision on the
merits of the question of retrospective regularisation of the
services of the Andhra Engineers or the equation of posts.
The
High Court further said that they refrained particularly from
examining the individual cases of the Andhra State officers inasmuch a~ the same might not arise if the principles of equation
of posts and integration were settled after due consideration of
the representation on fair and equitable basis.
The High Court however expressed the view that the temporary
promotions of Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers in the
Andhra State prior to l November, 1956 were stop-gap or fortuitous arrangements.
In the result, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions No.
1363 of 1966 and 1439 of 1967 filed by the Andhra officers. The
High Court allowed writ petitions No. 799, 833 ·and 896 of 1967
filed by the Telengana officers.
Civil Appeals No. 2436 and
2439 of 1969 arise out of writ petitions No. 1363 of 1966 and
.1939 of 1967 jiled by the Andhra State officers. Civil Appeals
No. 2437 and 2438 of 1969 arise out of writ petitions No. 799
and 833 of 1967 and the appellants in this Court are the Andhra
State officers.
It may be stated here that Civil Appeals No.
157,
A
B
c
158 and 343 of 1969 are pending in this Court.
These three
appeals arise out of writ petitions No. 799, 833 and 896 of 1967
E
filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court by the Telengana area
officers.
The Telengana area officers filed. those three appeals
challenging the finding of the High Court that the decision of
the Central Government dated 24 December, 1965 was not final
and that it was open to the Central Government to consider the·
temporary (stop-gap or fortuitous) service of Engineers from a
particular region for the purpose of seniority after giving an opportunity to the effected persons and after consultat'on with the
Central Advisory Board.
Counsel on behalf of the Andhra State officers contended that
the decision of the Central Government dated 22/24 December,
I 966 was not in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as Telengana area officers had made representations in
the year 1965.
It was also said that the decision of the Central
Government dated 22/24 December, 1966 was nothing more than
accepting in part the recommendations of the Central Advisory
Committee given in the month of November, 1965. According
to the appellan{s, the Tclengana area officers made their representations to the Central Advisory Committee and also to the
Central Government.
The High Co•1rt correctlv held that the
order of the Central Government dated 22/24 December, 1966
F
H
A
B
'
c
J)
E
f
I
G
H
N. SUBBA RAO v. UNION (Ray, J.)
95S:
was made without giving the Telengana area officers any opportunity of making representation against the course of action which
the Central Government adopted by that decision.
The second contention on behalf of the aiJpellants, namely,
the Andhra State officers was that the High Court was wrong in
holding that the temporary service of the Andhra officers was a
stop-gai:- or fortuitous
arrangement.
It was said on behalf of
the Andhra officers that there was no bar in the States Reorganisation Act to regularising the services which were irregular in the
liCnse that the Public Service Commission was not consulted at
the time of appointment but such consultation was done later. It
was also said · that the appointments in the Andhra State were
initially irregular, but they were not invalid
appointments. It
was contended that irregular service, if any, must be coun'.ed for
for the purpose of integration of services and fixation of seniority.
The retrospective regularisation and relaxation of rules was defended bv counsel for the appellan1s to be within the power ci
the Andhra Pradesh State to deal with its own old personnel on
the ground that such power was not only not taken away by the
States Reorganisation Act but was preserved.
The rival contentions on behalf of the Telengana area officers
were that the Central Government under section 115 ( 5) of the
Act was not competent to confer any new rights but only
t<Y
determine the rights existing as on the mid-night of 31 October,
1956. It was specially emphasised on behalf of the respondents,
the Telengana area officers, that the Andhra Pradesh State had
no jurisdiction to regularise the services of the Andhra State officers with retrospective effect from a date anterior to I November,
1956.
The reason advanced against such retrospective regularisation was that it would con.fer the right of seniority which would
pertain only to regular service and thereby enable the An<ihra
State officers to occupy a place in the Inter-State seniority which
they could not have but for the regularisation.
Irregular
appointment was also said to confer no right to the post.
The
reason was that the appointment was temporary and therefore it
conferred no right.
Counsel on behalf of the Telengana area
officers contended that the principles arrived at the Chief. Secretaries Conference indicated that only regular service, whether.
1 emporary or pennanent, could be counted to
determine the·
length of continuous service.
It is not necessary to express any opinion in these appeals as
lo whether the services of Andhra State officers were stoo-gap vr
fortuitous arrangements.
Under the States Reorganisation
Act
power is conferred on the Central Government to bring about •he
integration of services in the State of Andhra Pradesh by ensuring
SUPREME COUP.T J.EPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
fair and equitable treatment to all persons effected by the provisions of section 115 of the Act.
The Government of Andhra
Pradesh is under a duty to bring all relevant facts to the notice
of the Central Government.
The Andhra State officers are to
present their viewpoint in order to ensure that the final decision
of the Central Government is fair and oouitable to all employCCi
of the new State. The Telengana area officers are also entitled to
make representations in .order to ensure integration of the services
and fair and equitable treatment to all persons effected by the
provisions of the section.
Under the States Reorganisation Act the Central Government
is entrus·ted with the power of the division and integration of the
services and the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all
persons effected by the provisions of section 115 of the Act in
regard to allotmen1 of officers from an existing
State to a
swccessor- State.
With
regard to .powers of the State
section
l! 5 ( 7) of the Act provides that after
the appointed day {I
November, 1956) nothing shall effect the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation
to the determination of the conditions of service of persons serving
in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State.
There
iii however an important proviso to sub-section ( 7). It is that
the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day to the case of any person referred· to in sub-section
(1) ot sub-section (2) shall not be varied to his disadvantage
except with the previous approval of the Central Government
The power of the Central Government with regard to division and integration of service came up for consideration before
this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. P. K. Roy & Ors.('). It
was said there that the work of integration requires the formulation of principles, the actual preparation of preliminary gradation
list in accordance with the principles, the invitation of representations by the persons affected thereby, the consideration of repni.entalions and the publication of the final gradation list 'jncorl>Of&ting the dechion upon the representations.
The Act also ern-
·powers the Central Government to establish Advi~ory Committees
for the purpose of assisting the Central Government. In P. K .
.',Roy's(') case (supra) the ruling of this Court was that the prclim:nary work of preparation of- the gradation list on the principles decided · upon by the Central Government could
be
·1eft
to 1he State Government concerned and there would
be no mischief of delegation of power by that course
A
ll
c
D
E
F
G
of action.
The power of the Central Gvvernment under section
H
115 of the Act is that the decision has to be of the Central Government
The Centi al Government can therefore take the aid
(I) [1968] 2 S.C.R. 186.
~
~2:
~;
..
,..
..
\-
I
1111
-~
'\11!1
-~
•
('
II
F
, ..
J I
N. SUBBA RAO V. UNION (Ray, J.)
and assistance of the State Government in the matter oi e!ecting
the integration of the services but the final integration is .to be.
done only with the sanction and approval of the Central Government.
In the present appeals, there is no queS'tion of delegation.
The integration oi. services is to be done by the Central Gove'11ment.
In the task of integration of services the Central Government will consider the rival contentions of Andhra officers and
Telengana area officers ljs to whether the services of the Andhra
officers were stop-gap or fortuitous arrangements.
The power of th<;l State Government to change conditions oi.
se1'Tice within the meaning of section 115(7) of the Act was considerc(I by this Court in N. Raghavendra Rao v. Deputy Commissioner, South Kanara, Mangalore.(') This Courtsaid, "The broad
purpose underlying the proviso to section 115 ( 7) of the Act was
to ensure that the conditions of service should not be chanj!;ed ·
except with the prior approval of the Central Government." Under
.'uticle 309 of the Constitution the power of the State is preserved
to make rules. The proviso to sction 115(7) of the Act imposes
a limitation on tlie State not to vary the conditions of service appli·
cable immediately before 1 November, 1956 to the disadvantage
ct persons mentioned in sub-sections (1) or ( 2) of sectioH 115
of the Act. In Ral(havendra Rao's case (supra) the Central Government on 11 May, 1957 addressed a memorandum to all State
Governments. the Central Government there said that some conditions of service. should be protected. The matters for μrotec•ion
me!l.~ioned were substantive pay of permanent
1 employees, certain
type of special pay and leave rules in certain cases. With regard
to departmental promotion, the Central Government memorandum
said that the question whether any protection should be given in
respect of rules and conditions applicable to Government servants
affected by reorganisatbn immediately before the date of reorganisation in the matter of tnvelling al'owance, dif.~!:iline, control.
cl:>ssification, appeal, conduct, probation and departmental promotion was also considered. The Central Government memorandum agreed with tlie State view that it would not be appropriate tn
provide for prote(,tion ·in the matter of those conditions. This
memorandum was corntrued by this Court to am.cunt to an ap-Jroval by the Central Goverriment of chan.ze of service rules by the
State. It, therefore, follows that if there is any question of change
c;f conditions of servicP, it will have to be found out whether in the
first pl1ce 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
adv~nccd bv
th~
T.clengana officers in the present appeals was that the retrospective
(I) [1964] 7 S.CR. 549.
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1973] I S.C.lt
regularisation and relaxation of rules biy the State of Andhra Pradesh subsequent to the appointed day would amount to change in
conditions of service and conferment of new advantages on Andhra officers to the detriment to the Telengana officers. It will be
within the province of the decision o.f the Central Government
under section 115 of the Act in regard 10 integration of services
and ensuring fair and equitable treatment to an persons whether
the retrospective regularisation and relaxation of rules will amount
to any change in the conditions of service or will resuH in denial
of fair and equitable treatment to any of the persons affected
thereby.
The Central Government under the Act is required to affect
1he integration of services of officers in the Telengana area . and
officers of the Andhra State. The Central Government will have
to decide whether the regularisation of promotions of Andhra Engineers and relaxation of rules and retrospective regularisa· ion was
permissible.
The Central Government will determine finally the
principles governing the equation of posts and the preparation of
common gradation lists.
In the result, 'the order of the High Court quashing the decision of the Central Government dated 22/24 December, 1966 fa
upheld. The observations of the High Court on the tempoury
service ot the Andhra officers to be stop-gap or fortuitous arrangements are set aside. The Central Government will determine the
principles governing the equation of posts. The Central Government will now proceed wi1h the integration of services of Telengana
area officers and Andhra State officers and determine the principles
governing the equation of posts and prepare gradation lists after
;giving opportunities to the persons affected to make their representations.
In v!ew of the divided success of both the parties, they will
bear their costs both in the High Court and in this Court.
,G.C.
Appeal partly, allowed.
I• ..
c
D
F