Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Action for the integration of the services would have to be initiated soon after the finalisation of allocations.

This would involve two steps:

(i) Determination of equivalent posts, and

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

For determining the equation of posts the following factors would have to be taken into consideration:

(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;

One of the two steps which was to be taken for the purpose of integration was determination of equivalent posts. For determination the equivalent posts, the factors which would have to be taken in 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 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 persons holding equivalent posts would be made.

It is surprising that although the instructions as given by the Central Government were very clear and specific in PG NO 1015 the matter of 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 Department without first determining the equivalent posts. There can be no doubt that integration of services postulates equation of posts. Without such equation, preparation of inner se seniority lists between different 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 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 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 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 appellant's name was metioned in the provisional seniority. list as the Reception Officer, when he was on the appointed day, that is, on November 1, 1966, holding the post of district Public Relation Officer. Be that as it may. the final seniority list that was published undercover of the office Memorandum dated September 13, t971 appears to 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

Being aggrieved by the said impugned Government order dated April 28, 1982 the appellant moved a writ petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The High Court, however, took the view that the seniority list once finalised alter integrations 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 write petition. Hence this appeal by special leave. It has been ,already noticed that both the provisional and the final seniority lists were prepared without complying with the direction of the central Government as contained in the letter of the Joint secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home affairs, dated February 14. 1967. 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 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 consideration for the purpose of determination of relative seniority , as mentioned in the said letter of the joint Secretary, is length of continuous 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 scale of Rs. 250-500 on May 18,1966. It PG NO 1018 is not the case of any party that the promotion of the appellant was by way of any stop gap or fortuitous 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 Relations Officer. According to the said directions of the Central Government, in preparing the relative seniority the position of the appellant as the District Public Relations Officer should have been taken into consideration. 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 substantive 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 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.