Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
G. R. PRABHAVALKAR & ORS.(with connected appeal)
DATE OF JUDGMENT16/03/1973
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
ALAGIRISWAMI, A.
DUA, I.D.
CITATION:
1973 AIR 2102 1973 SCR (3) 714
1973 SCC (4) 183
CITATOR INFO :
R 1975 SC 929 (12)
R 1977 SC 161 (10,12)
RF 1977 SC1553 (3)
ACT:
States Reorganisation Act (37 of 1956) s. 115-Equation of
Officers from different States when integrated-Principles.
HEADNOTE:
Under s. 115 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, the
Central Government has to determine the principles governing
the equation of posts and prepare a common gradation list by
integration of services in different States which have been
reorganised. The Central Government is bound to ensure a
fair and equitable treatment to officers in the matter of
integration of services and the preparation of the gradation
list. It must give full and fair opportunity to the parties
affected to make representations and must give proper
consideration to, those representations.To assist the
Central Government in this task and for a proper considera-
tion of the representations the Central Government is
empowered to establish an Advisory Committee. It is not for
the Court to lay down the principles to be adopted for the
purpose of equation so long as the Central Government Acts
properly according to the provisions of the Act. The power
of the Court is only to see that the authority has acted
properly in accordance with the statute; and it cannot go
into the merits of the equation of posts which is a matter
within the province of the Central Government., Further, in
the case of equation of posts, especially among officers who
are allotted from other States, it cannot be done with any
mathematical accuracy. There will be some hardship or other
caused to the officers of one particular region or the
other. That is inevitable when service conditions of the
officers coming from different regions vary. However, if a
particular decision is "mala fide or arrived on totally
irrelevant or extraneous considerations such a decision can
be interferred with by Courts. [722B-G]
In the present case, certain sales-tax officers of the
Madhya Pradesh State were equated to grade II officers of
the Maharashtra State. The officers of the Bombay State
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12
filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Central
Government, on the ground that they were not given an
opportunity to make representations and that the decision
had been arrived at taking into consideration irrelevant and
extraneous matters, and that the Madhya Pradesh officers
should have been equated to grade III officers of the
Maharashtra State. The proceedings were adjourned by the
High Court to enable the Central Government to consider any
representations that may be made by the concerned officers.
After such consideration the Central Government expressed
the view that the equation already made was correct. The
High Court, however, quashed the decisions of the Central
Government. on the grounds that relevant matters were not
considered and that irrelevant and extraneous matters were
taken into account.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : (1) It is true that a decision taken by the Central
Government without giving an opportunity to the officers
affected to make representations is not a valid one. But
the earlier order in the present case
715
has been struck down by the High Court, not on the ground
that the Bombay Officers (petitioners) had not been given
opportunity to make representations, but on other grounds
which are not tenable. [724B-C]
(2) Assuming the Central Government did not give an
opportunity to the Bombay Officers to make their
representations before passing the earlier order the defect
was rectified by the fresh order passed later. [724C]
(3) The later order shows that the Central Government had
considered only very relevant factors and that the decision
had been taken in conformity with, the provisions of the
Act. The Central Government had constituted a Central
Advisory Committee composed of the Chairman of the Union
Public Service Commission, a retired Judge of the High Court
and a retired Law Secretary to the Government of India. It
was after taking into account the views of that Committee
and having regard to the comments of the State Governments
and the representations made by the officers concerned that
the Central Government took the decision. The four factors
which had to be taken into account as per the decision at
the conference of the representatives of the State
Governments and Government of India were all duly considered
by the Central Government, and no irrelevant or extraneous
matters have influenced the decision of the Central
Government. No. mala fides were urged against the
authorities [722G; 723D-F; 725A-E]
(4) Section 115(5)(b) refers to a proper consideration of
any representation made by any officer. This was satisfied
in this case. There is no further obligation to give a
personal hearing to the officers concerned. [726G-H]
(5) The fact that the State Government took steps to comply
with the directions of the High Court cannot lead to the
inference that the appeal by the Union had become
unfructuous. [727C-D]
[In the circumstances it is not necessary to consider the
point raised by the appellant that where all the four
relevant factors decided upon had been taken into
consideration, the fact that certain other additional
matters relevant to the question had also been taken into
account by the Central Government would not make the order
of the Central Government erroneous]. [725E-G; 276B]
Union of India & Anr. v. P. K. Roy & Ors. [1969] 2 S.C.R.,
186, N.Subba Rao etc. v., Union of India and others, [1972]
2 S.C.R. 862,B. Rajish Rai and others v. Union of India
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12
and others, [1973] 1 S.C.C. 61, Ryots of Garabandho and
other Villagers v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi and Another L.R.,
70 Indian appeals 129, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2303 of
1969.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and dated February
25. 26, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Misc. Petition No.
75 of 1967 and Civil Appeal No. 2304 of 1969.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
February 25, 26, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Misc.
Petition No. 75/67.
716
F. S. Nariman, Additional Soliciter-General of India, G.
Day,
B. D. Sharma and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant, (in C.A.
No. 2303) of Respondent No. 11 (in C.A. No- 2304).
K. K. Singhvi, R. B. Datar, for respondents Nos. 1 to 7 (in
both the appeals).
S.J. Deshpande and A. G.Ranthparkhi, for respondents Nos. 8,
10 to 13 (in C.A. No. 2303) and for the appellants (in C.A.
No. 2304).
B. D. Sharma for respondent Nos. 14 & 15 (in C.A. No. 2303)
and respondent No. 8 (in C.A. No. 2304).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VAIDIALINGAM, J.-These two appeals, by special leave, are
directed against the judgment and order dated 25/26th
February, 1969, of the Bombay High Court in Miscellenous
Petition No. 75 of 1967, quashing the orders of the Central
Government as well as certain other orders equating the post
of Sales Tax Officer of old Madhya Pradesh with the post of
Sales Tax, Officer, Grade II, of ,old Bombay. Civil Appeal
No. 2303 of 1969 is by the Union of India and Civil Appeal
No. 2304 of 1969 is by some of the Sales Tax Officers of the
old Madhya Pradesh State. They are also respondents in the
Union’s appeal. The appellants, in the latter appeal,
support the Union Government in all respects. In the course
of the judgment, we will refer to the array of parties as in
Civil Appeal No. 2303 of 1969.
Respondents 8 to 13 and 15, along with six others, were
serving as Sales Tax Officers in the State of Madhya
Pradesh. On the reorganisation of states as from November
1, 1956, these 13 officers were allotted to the bilingual
State of Bombay. By Notification dated November 16, 1957,
the State Government issued an order for equation of the
various posts. The Sales Tax Officers from Madhya Pradesh
were equated with Sales Tax Officers Grade III of Bombay.
At this stage it may be mentioned that in Bombay there were
three Grades of Sales Tax Officers, being Grades 1, II and
III. On the basis of the equation adopted by the State Gov-
ernment, a seniority list was published on May 21, 1959. In
the meanwhile, the Sales Tax Officers allotted from Madhya
Pradesh. not satisfied with the decision of the State
Government equating them with Grade III officers of Bombay,
had made representations to the Central Government. Their
grievance was that they should have been equated with Grade
11 officers of Bombay. The Central Government, having due
regard to the principles formulated earlier in consultation
with the State Governments and after consulting the Central
Advisory Committee constituted for the purpose, accepted the
representation of the erstwhile Madhya
717
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12
Pradesh Officers and equated them with the Sales Tax
Officers, Grade II, in the reconstituted Bombay State. This
decision was conveyed by the Central Government to the State
authorities by its letter dated April 23, 1960. The State
Government gave effect to the decision of the Central
Government by its Resolution dated April 27, 1961; and on
that basis published also a seniority list on October 10,
1963, and invited representations and objections from all
the officers. In this seniority list, the erstwhile Sales
Tax Officers of the Madhya Pradesh State were equated with
Grade 11 officers of the Maharashtra State and they were
also given suitable ranks. From the records it is seen that
only the first respondent, who was already a Sales Tax
Officer in the Bombay State, filed a representation. His
representation was rejected by the Central Government.
Respondents 1 to 7 and one G. S. Kochrekar (since deceased)
filed Miscelleneous Petition No. 75 of 1967 in the High
Court, under Article 226, challenging the decision. of the
Central Government and the State equating the Sales Tax
Officers of the erstwhile-Madhya Pradesh State with the
Sales Tax Officers, Grade 11, of the Bombay State. Their
main ground of attack appears to have been that in arriving
at the decision the Central Government did not give an
opportunity to-the Bombay officers to make their
representations and that the decision has been arrived at
taking into consideration irrelevant and extraneous matters.
The Writ Petition was opposed by the Madhya Pradesh
Officers. The Central Government was also added as a party
at a later stage of the proceedings before the High Court.
On behalf of the Central Government, an affidavit was filed
by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, detailing
the reasons for passing the or of April 23, 1960. The
proceedings were adjourned by the High Court to enable the
Central Government to consider the representations that may
be made by the concerned officers. Ultimately the Central
Government, by its order dated February 15, 1969, expressed
the view that the equation already made was correct.
The High Court has quashed the decisions of the Central Gov-
ernment dated April 23, 1960 and February 1-5, 1969 as also
the Resolution dated April 27, 1961 and the seniority list
published by the State Government. The two grounds on which
the High Court has quashed these orders and Notification
are:-
(1) if the matters relevant to be considered
for the purpose of equation, are taken into
account, the equation made by the Central
Government is not a rational one; and
(2) in equating the Sales Tax Officers of
Madhya Pradesh with Sales Tax Officers, Grade
II, of
718
of Bombay, the Central Government have taken
into account irrelevant and extraneous
matters.
It is now necessary to advert to the relevant provisions of
the statute, as also the various orders passed by the
Central and State Governments. The States Reorganisation
Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was
passed on August 31, 1956. under section 2(a), 1st of
November, 1956, is the appointed day’. Part X contains
provisions as to services. Section 114 deals with all India
Services. Section 115 contains provisions’ relating to
other services. Theprovision relevant in this section
is sub-section 5, clause (b),which is as follows:--
Provisions relating to other services.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12
"115(5) The Central Government may by order
established one or more Advisory Committees
for the purpose of assisting it in regard to
(b) the ensuring of fair and equitable
treatment to all persons affected by the
provisions of this section and the proper
consideration of any representation made by
such person",
Section 117, which confers powers on the Central Government
to give directions, is as follows
Power of Central Government to give direction.
117. "The Central Government may at any time
before or after the appointed day give such
directions to any State Government as may
appear to it to be necessary for the purpose
of giving effect to the foregoing provisions
of this part and the State Government shall
comply with such directions".
In the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary to the Government
of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, filed before the High
Court, it has been stated that conferences were held in May
1956 between the representatives of the State Governments
and the Government of India in New Delhi and it was
unanimously agreed that in determining the equation of
posts, the following factors should be borne in mind:-
(1) the nature and duties of a post;
(2) the responsibilities and powers exercised
by the officer holding a post; the extent of
the territorial or other charge held or
responsibilities discharged;
719
(3) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for
recruitment to the post; and
(4) the salary of the post.
That such a decision-was taken is also clear from the
circular of the State Government dated December 11, 1957.
This circular was published for the information of the
officers that the general. principles to be borne in mind
and referred to earlier, were to be followed in the equation
of posts. Those principles, it is further stated, were
settled at a conference convened by the Government of India
in May 1956, which was attended, among others, by the
representatives of the former States of Bombay, Madhya
Pradesh, Hyderabad, Saurashtra and Kutch. It is further
stated that the factors decided upon where also considered
by the Integration Committee of Ministers and were found
suitable and that the State Government was making equation
of posts having due regard to these factors.
The State Government by its Resolution dated November 16,.
1957, equated the Sales Tax Officers of Madhya Pradesh with
Sales Tax Officers Grade III of BomBay. This led to
representations being made by the Madhya Pradesh Officers to
the Central Government. In the affidavit of the Deputy
Secretary, it is stated that under the provisions of section
115(5) of the Act, the Central Government had constituted
the Central Advisory Committee for the purpose of assisting
it in giving proper considerations to the representations
that are made by officers of gazetted cadres.. The Committee
consisted of the Chairman of the Union Public Service
Commission as its Chairman, Shri P. N. Sapru, Member, Rajya
Sabha and a retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court and
Shri K. Y. Bhandarkar, retired Law Secretary to the Govern-
ment of India. It is further stated that the
representations received’ from the ex-Madhya Pradesh Sales
Tax Officers claiminG equation with Grade 11 officers of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12
Bombay were referred to the said Advisory Committee for
their consideration and advice. it is further stated that
after taking into consideration the points raised by the
officers in their representations, the comments of the State
Government, the recommendations of the Advisory Committee
and other relevant factors, the Central Government decided
that the post of Sales Tax Officer, Madhya Pradesh (Rs. 225-
600) was to be equated with the post of Sales Tax Officer,
Grade II, Bombay (Rs. 300-650). It is further stated in the
affidavit that this decision was conveyed to the State of
Bombay by the Ministry of Home, Affairs, Government of
India, in its letter dated April 23. 1960. A persual of the
order dated April 23, 1960, of the Central Government also
bears out the above facts.
On April 27, 1961, the State Government amended its previous
Resolution of 1957 so as to accord with the decision of the-
720
Central Government as contained in its letter dated April
23, 1960. On the basis of this, equation, the State
Government also published a seniority list on October 10,
1963, and called for objections. The only representation
dated January 9, 1964, received from the first respondent,
who pressed his claim to be put in Grade II. was rejected
ultimately by the Central Government and this led lo the
filing of the Writ Petition by the first respondent as well
as ,certain other officers of the Bombay State.
The High Court has discussed at great length the set-up and
the scheme of the Sales Tax Officers in the- two States, the
nature ,of the duties and powers exercised by them as well
as their salary, method of recruitment, chances of promotion
and other matters. The High Court took the four factors,
which have been directed to be borne in mind as a result of
the conference held between the representatives of the State
Governments and the Central Government and has come to the
conclusion that these factors, if correctly applied, will
not justify the equation of the Madhya Pradesh officers with
the Sales Tax Officers, Grade 11, of Bombay. In fact
the .view of the High Court is that on an overall assessment
the Sales Tax Officers in Madhya Pradesh area were in an
inferior position and that even the Sales Tax Officer, Grade
111, of old Bombay State are superior to the Sales Tax
Officers of Madhya Pradesh. In another context, the learned
Judges observe that no satisfactory material has been made
available to the Court to show the superiority of the Stales
Tax Officers of Madhya Pradesh over the Sales Tax Officers,
Grade III, of Bombay. The sum and substance of the
reasoning of the High Court is that as the salary of the old
Madhya Pradesh officers is assured by the Act, they should
be .satisfied if they are equated with Sales Tax Officers,
Grade III, of Bombay State. The orders were finally struck
down on the ground that the relevant factors for equation
have not been properly considered and that irrelevant
matters have been taken into account.
It is seen from the judgment of the High Court that on March
19, 1968, the proceedings were adjourned to enable the
Central Government to consider the representations of the
Bombay officers. The order of the High Court dated March
19, 1968, states that the counsel for the Union Government
made a representation that it was willing to review the
equation of posts of Sales Tax Officers from the erstwhile
State of Madhya Pradesh after hearing the affected officers
from the various integrating areas. ’The Government of
India passed an order on February 15, 1969, in and by which
the original decision dated April 23, 1960, equating the
Madhya Pradesh officers with Sales Tax Officers Grade 11 of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12
Bombay, was allowed to stand.
721
There is a reference in the judgment that this letter dated
February 15, 1969, was given to the learned Judges and that
it was also agreed to be shown to the counsel for the Writ
Petitioners. That the High Court has looked into this
letter is also clear from the fact that it says that outside
matters, like the hierarchy of the revenue officers under
the Land Revenue Code, have been taken into account by the
Central Government. There is no other indication in the
judgment as to what attack was made on this decision on
behalf of the Bombay officers. This order of the Central
Government also has been quashed by the High Court.
On behalf of the, Union, the learned Additional Solicitor
General has urged that the High Court has grossly mis-
appreciated the nature of the jurisdiction that it was
exercising in such matters. It was pressed before.us that
the Central Government, having due regard to the principles
that have been laid down for the purpose of equation of
posts and after a proper consideration of the repre-
sentations of the officers and the recommendations of the
Advisory Committee, have equated the Madhya Pradesh Sales
Tax Officers with the Sales Tax Officers,, Grade 11, Bombay.
In arriving at this decision, it is pointed out that no
irrelevant factor has been ’taken into account and the
decision is the only possible one that could be arrived at
in the circumstances. The representations made by the
officers concerned have been properly considered as is
mandatory under the provisions a the Act. The Central Gov-
ernment has acted according to the provisions of the Act.
Under those circumstances. the learned Additional Solicitor
General urged that the order of the High Court quashing the
orders in question was not justified. Mr. S. J. Deshpande,
learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2304
of 1969 and Mr. B. D. Sharma, learned counsel, for the State
of Bombay in both these matters have adopted the arguments
of the Additional Solicitor General.
Mr. K. K. Singhvi learned counsel for the Bombay officers,
has pointed out that the, orders of the Central Government
have been passed in violation of the principles of natural
_justice inasmuch as no opportunity given to the officers
concerned to make their representation and they were not
given a personal hearing before the Central Government
decided against them. Even the decisions arrived at, as
pointed out by the High Court, are based on a consideration
of irrelevant and extreneous factors. He pointed out- that
the principles formulated by the Central Government, in
consultation with the State Government, for equation of H
posits have not been given due regard. The counsel further
urged that the equation made by the Central Government, if
allowed to stand, will work great hardship to the Sales Tax
Officers of Bombay, as it will materially affect their
chances of promotion.
722
He further pointed out that the State Government has, in
accordance with the decision of the High Court, modified the
decision equating the Madhya Pradesh officers with Sales Tax
Officers, Grade 11, of Bombay and, therefore, these appeals
have become infructuous.
In our opinion, the contention of the learned Additional
Solicitor General are well founded. The Central Government,
under section 115 of the Act, has to determine the
principles governing equation of posts and prepare a common
gradation list by integration of services. To assist it in
the task of integration of services and for a proper
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12
consideration of representations, the Central Government is
empowered to establish Advisory Committees. The Central
Government is bound to ensure a fair and equitable treatment
to officers in the matter of integration of services and
preparation of gradation lists. It has also to give a full
and fair opportunity to the parties affected to make their
representations; and the Central Government has also to give
a proper consideration to those representations. SO long as
the Central Government has acted properly according to the
provisions of the Act, we are of the view, that a court
cannot go into the merits or otherwise of equation of posts
which is matter within the province of the Central
Government.
It is no doubt true that the Central Government must have
due regard to the principles enunciated by it in
consultation with the states for the purpose of equation of
posts. It must not only give an opportunity to the
concerned officers to make representations, ’but it must
also give those representations a proper consideration. It
is not within the province of the courts to lay down what
are the principles to be adopted for purposes of equation.
That falls within the purview of the statute concerned and
the authorities charged with such duty. The power of the
courts is only to see that an authority has acted properly
in accordance with the statute. If that is established, the
decision of the authorities concerned will have to stand-.
If a particular decision is mala fide or arrived at on
totally irrelevant and extraneous considerations, such a
decision can be interfered with by courts. In this case, no
mala fides are alleged. As to whether any extraneous or
irrelevant factors have been taken into account will be
dealt with later.
The High Court is of the view that the equation settled by
the Central Government affects prejudicially the officers of
Bombay. By Madhya Pradesh officers being equated with Grade
II officers of Bombay State, the High Court observes that-
(a) Bombay officers acting in Grade 11 have to
revert-to Grade III;
723
(b) Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Officers have got
large jumps in salary; and
(e) even the little chance of promotion is
lost to tile Bombay Officers till all the 13
officers from Madhya Pradesh retire or are
exhausted.
In our view, the High Court has grossly erred. In the case
of equation of posts, especially among officers who are
allotted from other states, it cannot be done with any
mathematical accuracy. There will be some hardship or other
caused to the officers of one particular region or other.
That is inevitable when the service conditions of the
officers coming from different regions vary. When the
Central Government was impleaded as a party in the Writ
Petition before the High Court, an affidavit of the Deputy
Secretary, Home Affairs, was filed. That affidavit very
exhaustively deals with the circumstances under which the
Sales Tax Officers of Madhya Pradesh were equated with Sales
Tax Officers, Grade 11, of Bombay by the Central
Government’s order dated April 23, 1960. The Central
Government had constituted the Central Advisory Committee as
is required under sub-section 5 of section 115 of the Act.
The composition of the Committee has been referred to
earlier. It was, after taking into account the views of the
Central Advisory Committee and having due regard to the
comments of the State Governments, and the representations
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12
made by the officers concerned that the Central Government
took the decision. The factors which had to be taken into
account as per the decision taken at the conference held in
May, 1956, were all duly stated to have been considered by
’the Central Government. We do not find that any irrelevant
or extraneous matters have influenced the decision of the
Central Government.
It is true that a decision taken by the Central Government
without giving an opportunity to the officers affected to
make representations, is not a valid one. It has ’been so
held by this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. R. K. Roy &
Ors.(1) The jurisdiction and powers of the Central
Government under the Act have- also been laid down in N.
Suba Rao Etc. v. Union of India and Others(2) and D. Rajish
Raj and Others v. Union of India and Others(3). One of the
points that has been stressed by Mr. Singhvi is that the
decision of the Central Government dated April 23, 1960, is
opposed to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the
Bombay Officers had no opportunity of making any repre-
sentations before the said order was passed. We have
already referred to ,the fact that originally the State
Government equated the Madhya Pradesh officers with Sales
Tax Officers, Grade III,
(1) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 186.
(3) [1973] 1 S.C.C. 61.
(2) [1972] 2 S.C.C.862.
724
of Bombay. The Madhya Pradesh Officers filed
representations to the Central Government against this
equation. It is not clear from the records whether any
counter representations were received by the Central
Government from the Bombay officers. Nor is it clear
whether the Central Government called upon the Bombay
Officers to offer their comments or views on claims made by
the Madhya Pradesh officers. Anyhow the order came to be
passed on April 23, 1960. This order has been struck down
by the High Court, not on the ground that the Bombay
officers have not been given an opportunity to make
representations, but on other grounds.
Assuming that the Central Government did not give an oppor-
tunity to the Bombay officers to make their representations
before passing the order of April 23, 1960, the defect in
this regard stands rectified by the fresh order passed on
February 15, 1969. We have already referred to the fact
that during the hearing of the Writ Petition, after the
Central Government was impleaded, a representation was made
on its behalf that the Union Government was willing to
review the equation of posts of Sales Tax Officers from the
erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh after hearing the affected
officers from the various integrating areas. This repre-
sentation was incorporated in an order of court dated March
19, 1968 and the proceedings stood adjourned. There is no
controversy that all the officers concerned, including the
Bombay officers made representations to the Central
Government. The Bombay officers wanted the order of April
23, 1960, to be modified by equating the Madhya Pradesh
officers with the Sales Tax Officers, Grade 111, of Bombay,
as was originally done by the State Government. The Madhya
Pradesh officers, on the other hand, reinforced their claim
to sustain the order of April 23, 1960. The Central
Government passed the order on February 15, 1969, which was
made known to the learned Judges hearing the Writ Petition.
In fact this is also one of the orders that has been struck
down by the High Court. When the order has been struck
down, it is quite reasonable, to infer that the Court and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12
all parties were fully aware of the very elaborate reasons
given by the Central Government for equating the Madhya
Pradesh Sales Tax Officers with the Sales Tax Officers,
Grade II, of Bombay. There was no attack, so far as we
could see, levelled by the Writ Petitioners against this
order of the Central Government excepting that a personal
hearing was not given to them by the Central Government.
The High Court brushed aside this order by a mere statement
that the additional matter that was’ considered by the
Central Government related to the hierarchy of revenue
officers under the Land Revenue Code and that the said
matter is outside those to be considered according to the
minutes of the joint conference of the representatives of
the State and the Central Governments.
725
The order dated February 15, 1969, passed by the Central
Government, together with the enclosures, is a very lengthy
one. It clearly shows that they had taken into account the
representations made by the officers both in the former
State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Bombay, the various
affidavits and counter-affidavits filed in the High Court
the representations made by the Bombay Officers the commits
of the State Government on those representations and the
recommendations of the Central Advisory Committee. It is
after a consideration of these matters that the Central
Government decided to equate the Sales Tax Officers of old
Madhya Pradesh with Sales Tax Officers, Grade 11, of old
Bombay. A copy of the explanatory memorandum to the
recommendations of the Central Advisory Committee has also
been forwarded by the Central Government to the State
Government. The entire proceedings resulting in the order
of February 15, 1969, leave no doubt in our minds that the
Central Government have considered only very relevant
factors and the decision has also been taken in conformity
with the provisions of the Act They also show that the
Central Government has given a proper consideration to the
representations made to the Bombay and Madhya Pradesh
officers. The order deals with every one of the points
raised in both sets of representations and it also gives
elaborately the reasons for rejecting the representations of
the Bombay officers and for accepting those of the Madhya
Pradesh officers.
The learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that it
is only necessary that the authorities concerned should bear
in mind the four factors, referred to earlier, in the matter
of equation of posts’ According to him, when once, these
factors have been properly taken into account, the mere fact
that certain other additional or. incidental matters
relevant to the question have also been considered, will not
vitiate the orders passed by the Central Government. In
this connection the learned Additional Solicitor General
drew our attention to the decision of the judicial Committee
in Ryots of Garabendho and Other Villagers v. Zemindar of
Parlakimedi and Another(1). The provision that the Judicial
Committee had to consider was contained in sub-section 2 of
section 168 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, that in
settling rents the Collector "shall have regard to the
provisions of this Act". The Judicial Committee held that
these provisions only require that they must be taken into
consideration by the officers concerned and it is impossible
to say that there is a duty on the, part of the officers to
keep rigidly within the limits imposed by these provisions.
Based upon this decision, the contention of the learned
Additional Solicitor General was that even if certain other
additional matters relevant to the question have been taken
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12
into
726
account by the Central Government, its order cannot be,
considered to be erroneous. In our view, the earlier order
dated April 23, 1960, as well as the, latter order dated
February 15, 1969, have both been passed by the Central
Government having due regard to the principles settled for
purposes of equation of posts. In this view, it is not
necessary for us to consider the point raised by the learned
Additional Solicitor General based upon the decision of the
Judicial Committee.
This order of February 15, 1969, has not, in our view,
received due consideration at the hands of the High Court.
On the other hand, the High Court has dealt mainly with the
order dated April 23, 1960, as well as the consequential
orders passed by the State Government. As we are satisfied
that the order of February 15, 1969, has been passed by the
Central Government on a proper consideration of all relevant
factors and materials, it is not necessary for us to deal
elaborately with the reasons given IV the High Court for
striking down the previous order, except to say that the
High Court’s view in respect of those matters is not
justified. Even the grievance that the Bombay officers did
not have an opportunity to make my representation before the
order dated April 23, 1960, was passed, has now been removed
by the Central Government furnishing the said opportunity
before it passed the order of February 15, 1969. Even
before us, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7, has
not been able to point out infirmities, if any, in this
order.
The criticism of Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel, levelled
against the order of February 15, 1969 that the Central
Government did not give a personal hearing to the Bombay
officers before passing the order, need not detain us long.
Though such a grievance was made faintly during the
arguments in the Writ Petition, the High Court has not
struck down even this order on this ground. The High Court,
in the judgment, has stated that the proceedings were,
adjourned on March 19, 1968, to enable "the Central
Governmentto consider the representations of the Writ
Petitioners". Therefore the High Court, which passed the
order of March 19, 1968, adjourning the proceedings had
understood that the object of the said adjournment was to
enable the Writ Petitioners to "make representations" and
that the Central Government should properly consider the
same. Admittedly, representations were made by the Writ
Petitioners and as stated earlier by us, they have been
dealt with by the Central Government in its order dated
February 15. 1969. Section 115(5)(b) refers to a proper
consideration of any representation made by any officer.
This is satisfied in this case. Mr. Singhvi, learned
Counsel. drew our attention to the decision of this Court in
N. Subba Rao Etc. v. Union of India And Others(1) and urged
that it is implicit in the said decision
(1) [1972] 2 S.C.C. 862.
727
that there is an obligation on the Central Government to
give a personal hearing to the officers concerned under the
Act. We have gone though the decision carefully and we do
not find any basis for this contention. Therefore, there is
no substance in this criticism of Mr. Singhvi.
Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel, then referred us to the fact
that after the judgment of the High Court the State
Government has passed an order on March 19, 1971, the effect
of which is to equate the Sales Tax Officers of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12
erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State with the Sales Tax Officers,
Grade III, of Bombay. This order, in our opinion, has been
passed by the State Government only to comply with the
directions given by the High Court. It was made during a
period when the appeal against the judgment was pending in
this Court. The fact that the State Government took steps
to comply with the directions of the High Court cannot lead
to the inference that the appeal by the Union of India has
become infructuous.
In the result the judgment and order dated 25/26th February,
1969, of the High Court are set aside and Civil Appeals Nos.
2303 and 2304 of 1969 are allowed. There will be no order
as to costs in both the appeals.
V.P.S.
Appeals allowed.
728