# VASANT KRISHNARAO PATURKAR & ANR v. D. R. MAJRAMK'.AR & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1974] 3 S.C.R. 857
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-04-08
- **Case number:** Special Civil Application No. 1354 of 1970
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, P. N. GosWAMI
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vasant-krishnarao-paturkar-anr-v-d-r-majramk-ar-others-6096
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

857
S1ates' Reorganisation Act, 1956--S. 115 and l11-Whetl1er Higf1 Court can
decide issues of gradation senioriJy etc. of officers (lllotted to the bilingual state
of Bombal' after reorca11isation of States.
The appellants and the first 19 res,Pondents and respondents 22 to 24 ~re
the employees in the Agriculture Dept. of the State of Maharashtra following
reorganisation of states.
Respondents 1 to 19 were the original petitioners in S.C.A. No. 1354/70.
They were offi:cers of the former Hyderabad State. They prayed in their application for a writ to set aside the Bombay Government's Resolutions dated 17th
February 1958 and 16th ~fay 1969 and.the provisional gradation List of 27th
Seotemb:r 1969 and the promotion orders of 5th and 6th June 1970 and other
coitsequential reliefs.
The Bombay High Court disposed of the application on merits ln favour
of th.e appellants. The orders oC the High Court affected the interests of the
present appellants.
•
Before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, appellant No. 1 and
three other officers lodged an applica~on impleading the State of Maharashtra and
88 other respondents including the present respondent 1 to 19. Respo_ndents 1 to
19 and others contested the application ·before the Nagpur bench unsuccessfully.
The Nagpur b:!nch allowed the writ- application and quashed the resolution of
the Government dated 9-9-1960 and combined Seniority List of 22-8-62 and
quashed the order of absorption of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 89.
The respondents, who were Agricultural officers from Hyderabad Region.
Preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Nagpur High Court ~fore the
Supreme Cou1i. They were, allowed to withdraw the same without prejudice
to all pa~ties affected to make representations to the Government .in accordanc~
with :;. 115 of the Sta~es Reora,anisation Act 1956.
The Govern;nent of .Maharashtra made a new gradation list on 27-9·69 and
allowed certair. consequential orders of promotion on 5th,,and 6th June, 1970.
This, therefore led to the Special Civil Application No. 1354 of 70
at the
instance of respondents 1 to 19.
The appellant and another 1;1erson had also filed Special Civil
Application
No. 1126/71 in the Nagpur Bench for quashing the resolution
of Bombay
Government of 16th Mav 1969 on certain grounds. That matter is still pending
in the Nagpur Bench. The respondents 1 to 19 were impleaded as respondents
in that application but they,·did not file anv affidavits in suppol't of their case.
When the matter came up for hearing, the appellants knew that another petition
in the same subject was already decirled bv the Bombay
High Court.
The
appellants took immediate stet?s in the Bombay High Court but failed to obtain
any favourable orders. although they prayed for rehearing of the writ petition.
The oroblem is a difficult one to decide gradation, seniority etc. when officers
of 3 different States are alloted to the new bilingual state of Bombay under the
provisions of the States Reorganisation Act. Setting aside the impugned judg~
ment and order of the Botnba.y High court and directing restoration of the
Special Civil Application No. 1354/70 and disposal of the same in accordance
v.·ith law,
HELD : {I) There is sufficient guideline in Part X of the States Reorganisation Act 1956 and als9 ·in Part Vlll of the Bomtiav Reorganisation Act 1960
858
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1974] 3 S.C.R.
that lhe Government of India is the final authority in the matter of division and
A
integration of services among the new states tO ensure a fair and
equitab1e
1reatment to all per~ons affected by the reorganisation including proper conside·r11:tion of any representation made by concerned
persons.
Further it. is well
settl~d that the Central Government under Sec .. 115 or the Act has to determine
the principles governing equation of pests and prepare common gradation lists
by integration of services an•j in doing so to ensure fair and equitable treatment
to all persons concerned: [860 H;

## Text

A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
VASANT KRISHNARAO PATURKAR & ANR.
v.
D. R. MAJRAMK'.AR & OTHERS
April 8, 1974,
[H. R. KHANNA AND P. N. GosWAMI, JJ.]
857
S1ates' Reorganisation Act, 1956--S. 115 and l11-Whetl1er Higf1 Court can
decide issues of gradation senioriJy etc. of officers (lllotted to the bilingual state
of Bombal' after reorca11isation of States.
The appellants and the first 19 res,Pondents and respondents 22 to 24 ~re
the employees in the Agriculture Dept. of the State of Maharashtra following
reorganisation of states.
Respondents 1 to 19 were the original petitioners in S.C.A. No. 1354/70.
They were offi:cers of the former Hyderabad State. They prayed in their application for a writ to set aside the Bombay Government's Resolutions dated 17th
February 1958 and 16th ~fay 1969 and.the provisional gradation List of 27th
Seotemb:r 1969 and the promotion orders of 5th and 6th June 1970 and other
coitsequential reliefs.
The Bombay High Court disposed of the application on merits ln favour
of th.e appellants. The orders oC the High Court affected the interests of the
present appellants.
•
Before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, appellant No. 1 and
three other officers lodged an applica~on impleading the State of Maharashtra and
88 other respondents including the present respondent 1 to 19. Respo_ndents 1 to
19 and others contested the application ·before the Nagpur bench unsuccessfully.
The Nagpur b:!nch allowed the writ- application and quashed the resolution of
the Government dated 9-9-1960 and combined Seniority List of 22-8-62 and
quashed the order of absorption of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 89.
The respondents, who were Agricultural officers from Hyderabad Region.
Preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Nagpur High Court ~fore the
Supreme Cou1i. They were, allowed to withdraw the same without prejudice
to all pa~ties affected to make representations to the Government .in accordanc~
with :;. 115 of the Sta~es Reora,anisation Act 1956.
The Govern;nent of .Maharashtra made a new gradation list on 27-9·69 and
allowed certair. consequential orders of promotion on 5th,,and 6th June, 1970.
This, therefore led to the Special Civil Application No. 1354 of 70
at the
instance of respondents 1 to 19.
The appellant and another 1;1erson had also filed Special Civil
Application
No. 1126/71 in the Nagpur Bench for quashing the resolution
of Bombay
Government of 16th Mav 1969 on certain grounds. That matter is still pending
in the Nagpur Bench. The respondents 1 to 19 were impleaded as respondents
in that application but they,·did not file anv affidavits in suppol't of their case.
When the matter came up for hearing, the appellants knew that another petition
in the same subject was already decirled bv the Bombay
High Court.
The
appellants took immediate stet?s in the Bombay High Court but failed to obtain
any favourable orders. although they prayed for rehearing of the writ petition.
The oroblem is a difficult one to decide gradation, seniority etc. when officers
of 3 different States are alloted to the new bilingual state of Bombay under the
provisions of the States Reorganisation Act. Setting aside the impugned judg~
ment and order of the Botnba.y High court and directing restoration of the
Special Civil Application No. 1354/70 and disposal of the same in accordance
v.·ith law,
HELD : {I) There is sufficient guideline in Part X of the States Reorganisation Act 1956 and als9 ·in Part Vlll of the Bomtiav Reorganisation Act 1960
858
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1974] 3 S.C.R.
that lhe Government of India is the final authority in the matter of division and
A
integration of services among the new states tO ensure a fair and
equitab1e
1reatment to all per~ons affected by the reorganisation including proper conside·r11:tion of any representation made by concerned
persons.
Further it. is well
settl~d that the Central Government under Sec .. 115 or the Act has to determine
the principles governing equation of pests and prepare common gradation lists
by integration of services an•j in doing so to ensure fair and equitable treatment
to all persons concerned: [860 H; 861 A-B]
I
Q. Rajian Rai 11nd Ors. v. Union of b1dia & Or.if. A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 457, N.
S11bbe1 RC10 etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [1972] 2 S.C.C. 862; and Uh.ion of
/11d111 and a1101/ier v. P. K. Roy & Ors. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 186, referred to.
(II) The High Court cannot clothe upon itself the authority for pedormin1
the functions which are :>pecifically and expressly intended to be the duty of the
•..:entral Government under the Act.
Therefore, the High Court was not right
in directing the State Government to do that which under the provisions of the
Act is within the domain of the Central Government and secondly, in fixing a
~ime limit for action and if the same is exceeded, directing an auto1natic entitlement tO the :iecond relief as to equation, ab.iorption and fixation of seniority as
pr;:iJed for by respondents 1 to 19. [861 D]
(111) Jn the .Present case, a1though the High Court observed that there was
sufficient cause for rehearing the special Civil application; it wrOngfuUy did not
give any Opportunity to th!! petitioners
~nd b'le State of Maharashtra
tQ
convass their respective poinl'!. of view against the writ petition.
Under the
circumstances, this Court -directs rehearing of the sped-Ill civil applicatiol).
no.
1354/70 after givi!J.g opportunities to a]) the parties concerned. [862 Q
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :-Civil. Appeal No. 1227 ot
1972.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the
9th December, 1971 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1354 of 1970.
M. N. PJ.adke, Naunit Lal and Lalita Kohli, for the appellant.
S. c. Agarwala, K. K. Singhvi, R. K. Garg., S.S. Bhatf>/iagar and
v. J. Francis, for respondent Nos. 10.& 14.
M. C. Rhandare and M. N. Shroff, for respondentNos. 20--24.
The J utlgment of the Court was delivered byGmwA M 1, J.-This appeal by special leave is dirocted against the
judgment of the High Court of Bombay of 9th December, 1971, in
Special Civil Application (S.C.A.) N<>. 1354 of 1970 under Article
226 of the Constitution. The appellants and the first nineteen .re,..
pondents and respondents 22 to 24 are at present the employees
in the Agriculture Department of the State of Maharashtra following reorgani .. tion of States on !st November, 1950.
Respondents I to 19 were the original petitioners in S.C.A. No.
1354 of 1970. They were officers from the former Hyderabad State
p1ior to the State.s Reorganisation Act, 1956, (briefly called the
Act).
They prayed in their said application for a writ to set aside
the Bombay Government's Resolutions· of 17th February, 1958 and
I 6th May, 1969 and the provisional gradation list of 27th September, 1969 and the promotion orders of 5th and 6th June, 1970
B
c
D
E
F
G
{
H
.,.
f
A
B
...
.. ,
'
c
D
E
F
G
H
v. K. PATURKAR v. D. R· MAJRAMKAR (Goswami, J.)
859
and other consequential reliefs.
They h'!d impleaded in the said
application five respondents, the first two being the State of Maharashtra and the Director of Agriculture, Maharashtra and the remain·
ing three respondents were the three Agricultural Officers impleaded
in a representative capacity by leave of the High ·Court under order 1,
rule 8, Civil Procedure Code.
These respondents (Nos. 3 to 5) did
not appear to contest the application in th~ Bombay High Court
and it is alleged that they had no interest in the matter and were
in collusion with the appellants. Even the first two respondents,
namely, the State of Maharashtra and the Director of Agriculture,
went by default, although a· belated prayer to enter appearanc.e had
been made through counsel on behalf of the State of Maharashtra
after commencement of · arguments,
on the day of final
hearing,
which was, however, rejected by the High Court. The application was
then disposed of, ex parte, on merits by the High Court in favour of
the applicants. It is not disputed that the order of the High Court
directly affects the interests of the present appellants, who are Agricultural Officers from the Madhya Pradesh region.
From Bombay we may now turn to the Nagpur Bench of the said
High Court. Tliere the appellant No. 1 and three other Agricul'ural
Ofticers lodged a Special Civil Application No. 361 of 1964 impleading the State of Maharashtra and 88 other respondents, including the
present respondents 1 to 19.
Respondents. 1 to 19 and others contested the application before the Nagpur Bench unsuccessfully .. The
Nagpur Bench of the High Court allowed the Writ application by its
judgment and order dated 6th December, 1967 and the operative
part of the same may be quoted.
"Accordingly, we allow the petition and quash the
resolution of the Government dated 9-9-1960 and combined
seniority list issued by the Government on 22-8-1962.
If
the State Government wants to alt.er
the basis of
equation originally fixed on 17-2-1958, an opportunity to make
representation against ihe proposed alteration has to be
given to the persons likely to be affected.
The State Government will now take an appropriate action.
The neces··
sary correspondence of quashing of these two orders is that
the irtermediate order of absorption which is necessary step
after inter se seniority and gradation list can be compiled
is also to be quashed.
Acoordingly, we quash the ·order.
of absorption, so far as these petitioners and respondents
No. 3 to 89 are concerned, dated
11.5.1962 ..... ".
The respondents, '.!'ho were Agricultural Officers from Hyderabad
region, preferred an appeal against the judgment of.-Oie Nagpur Bench
being No. 1366 of 1968 in this Court. They were, however, allowed by this Court on 23rd January, 1969, to withdraw the same "without prejudice to all parties affected to make representations to the
Government in accordance with section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956"
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(19'/4] 3 S.C.R.
After the above order of this Court, it is said that many AgriA
cultural Officers made representations to the Government of India
under section 115 of the Act. The Government of Maharashtra
possed a Resolution of 16th May,, 1969, purporting to be an order
giving new equation of posts in the Agricultural Departm~nt in pursuance of which a gradation list was made on 27th September, 1969.
Then followed certain consequential orders of promotion of 5th and
6th June,
1970.
This, as already noticed, led to the S·pecial Civil
B
Application No. 1354 of 1970 at the instance of respondents 1 to 19
""d the operative part of this impugned order of 9th Decembor J9il,
is. m the tollowing terms :-
'
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying judgment,
the Court makes absolute with costs the rule granted by it
on 30. 6. 70 in terms of the prayer (a) of the petition. The
c
Court further directs that if respondent No. 1 fails to decide
the question of equation of posts held by the petitioners
in the former Hyderabad Sta.te in acordanc-o. with law and
the observa'.ions in this Judgment within three months from
9.12.71, Respondent No. I shall equate the posts of Agricultural Assistant of the former Hyderabad State in the scale
of Rs. 176-300 with the posts of Agricultural Officer,
D
Grade I of the former Bombay State in the scale of Rs.
'210-10-300 and to absorb the petitioners and to fix their
soniority on that bosis with effect from the 1st day of November 1956"
The appellant and another person had also filed Special Civil
Application No. 1126 of 1971 in the Nagpur Bench for quashing tile
F -
Resolution of the Bombay Government of 16th May, 1969, on certain grounds. That matter is still pending in the Nagpur Bench. The
respondonts I to 19 were impleaded as respondents in that application and although they had been served, they did not file any return
when the said application came up for hearing at Nagpur on 2nd
February, 1972.
The learned Government Advocate, however, mentioned to the court that another petition on the same subject had
F
already been decided by the Bombay High Court. It is said that
this was the first time when the appellants came to know of the
impugned judgment and took immediately steps in .the Bombay High
Court to set aside the order and for rehearing the writ petition, but
failed to obtain favourable orders.
The problem is indeed ticklish and sensitive concerning integraG
tion, absorption, gradation and fixation of appropriate seniority o[
the officers throwing by act of the State their common lot from different areas, namely, the former State of Madhya _Pradesh, former
State of Hyderabad and the former State of Bombay allotted to the
new bilingual State of Bombay under the provisions Of the s·atcs
Reorganisation Act. It is, however, cleat that there is sufficient
guideline in Part X of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 as also
u
larer in Part VIII of the Bombay Reorganisation Act 1960· and it is
reserved for the Government of India, advisedly, to be the final authority in the matter of division and integration of services amoug
.
(
•
' '
v. K. PATURKAR v. D. R· MAJRAMKAR (Goswami, J.)
861
' A :the new States to ensure a fair and equitable treatment to all persons
:iliected by the reorganisation including proper consideration of any
representation made by concerned persons.
(See section 115 and
section 117 of the Act and sections 81 and 83 of the Bombay Ro·
,,rganisation Act, 1960).
B
c
It is well settled that the Central Government under section 115
d the Act has to de-termine the principles governing equation of
posts and prepare common gradation lists by integration of services
~nd in doing so to ensure fair and equitable treatment to all persons
concerned. The Central Government is also required to give opportunities to the parties affected to make their representations.
(See
D. Rajian Raj & Others v. Union of India & others('); N. S11bba
Rao etc. v. Union of India and Others( 2) and Union of India &
Anr. v. P. K. Roy & Ors.(3) ).
The High Court cannot clothe upon itself the authority for performing the functions which are specifically atiil expressly intended to
he the obligation and duty of the Central Government under the Act.
The High Court is, therefore, not right in two matters namely, in
directing the S•ate Government to do that which under the provi·
D sions of the Act is within the domain of the Central Government and
secondly in fixing a time limit for action and, if the same is exceeded, directing an. automatic entitlement to the second relief as to
equation, absorption and fixation of seniority is prayed for by respondents 1 to 19. This view of the High Court is clearly erroneous
in view of the provisions of the Act.
£
That, however, does not dispose of this matter. Mr. Phatlkc,
learned counsel for the appellants, raises several questions before us.
Firstly, that the Division Bench of the High Court could not sit in
appeal against the Division Bench decision of the Nagpur Bench which
is binding on the respondents, 1 to 19. Secondly, that there is clear
violation of the principles of natural justice in disposing of the writ
pe'ition by the· High Court, ex parte, and in not reviewing its order
F
when sufficient cause was shown by the appellants herein.
Thirdly,
that the High Court should not have allowed the application under
order I, rule 8, Civil Pro:edure Code, and should have insisted upon
personal service of the rule nisi on the affec~ed petitioners in a service
matter of such implications.
G
Mr. Bhandare, learned counsel for the Stale of Maharashtra, also,
inter a/ia, took the point that the Central Government was a necessary party and the petition should have been dismissed by the High
Court for non-joinder of that Government.
B
lt is not necessary for us to go into these questions in. view of
the High Court's order of December 24, 1971~ in Civil Application
No. 3261 of 1971, of the State of Maharashtr~ and the Director of
(I) A,tR. 1974 SC 457-1973 (I) sec 61
(2) 1972 (2) s.c.c. 8<2
(l} [19681 (2) SCR 186.
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974) 3 S.C.R.
Aj;riculture praying for permission to file an affidavit in reply to the, ... A
writ petition and for 'contesting the petition on merits. The High
Court observed "we are satisfied on reading these affidavits that there
was sufficient cause for rehearing the Special Qvil Application", but
on perusal of the affidavit in reply and hearing counsel for the State
rejected th~ said petition.
The High Court also dismissed the petitioners' application for rehearing the writ application.
We are not satisfied that the High Court was right in not allowing_ an cippcrtunity to the petitioners as well as to the State to canvass
their respective points of view before it against the writ application,
particularly so when the matter bad been heard in a representative
writ application· and not one of the actually affected persons had been
impleaded as a respondent even to represent their category.
The High
Court itself· observed, as noticed above, "there was sufficient cause
for rehearing".
Without,
therefore~ going into the various points
raised before us, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of
tiie Bombay High Court of 9th December, 1971 and direct restoration of the Special Civil Application No. 1354 of 1970 to its file for
disposal of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity
to all the parties concerned.
We further direct that respondents 1
to 19 shall take steps in the High Court to implead the Central Government as well as. the present appellants and all other officers affected by the orders sought to be quashed in the Special Civil Application
No. 1354 of 1970
The appeal is allowed on the terms indicated above. There will
bt: 110 order as to costs in this appeal.
s.c.
Appeal (I/lowed.
ll
c
D
l
!I
{