Andhra Pradesh Vs. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao & Ors
 INSC 156 (19
S.Rajendra Babu, S.N.Phukan Rajendra Babu. J.
respondents herein were in the judicial service of the State of A.P. They were originally appointed as Munsif Magistrates
in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and after the formation of State of Andhra Pradesh their services were intergrade with
those of their counterparts from different parts forming the State of A.P. As provided in the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 [hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'], the inter-state seniority amongst the judicial
officers of different regions was referred to the Central Govt. and the new
State of A.P. prepared a common seniority list as directed by the Central Govt.
Certain litigations arose as to the norms to be adopted for fixing the
seniority and ultimately the High Court the concerned officers did not actually
work in the higher post and they had no right to claim monetary benefits.
26(aa) of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 40(aa) of the Hyderabad Civil Services Regulations are
brought to our notice. The said Rules are in identical terms and read as under
The pay of a Govt. servant whose seniority/promotion has been revised and fixed
from an earlier date, pay may be refixed on the basis of notional duty in the
post from time to time. For this purpose the period for which the Govt. servant
concerned would have officiated in the higher post if he had been promoted
actually on that date may be reckoned on weighted for only such period given
from the national date of promotion. The non-qualifying periods like
extraordinary leave, suspension, etc., should also be deducted.
: Monetary benefit arising out of refixation as above, shall be limited to the
duty periods and arrears shall be payable only for the period during which the
actually discharged the duties of the post. Arrears shall not be payable for
the national duty periods assigned as a result of revision of seniority
2: While a Govt. servant who is already promoted before the revision of his
seniority and who is assigned an earlier date of promotion, shall be allowed
arrears resulting from the pay fixation, in manner set out in Note 1 above for
the period during which he actually discharged the duties of the post, and in
the case of a Govt. Servant who has been promoted before the revision of
seniority but is promoted after the review he shall be allowed monetary benefit
of pay fixation, from the date of promotion only.
3: In the case of a Govt. servant who has already retired or died before the
revision of his seniority and fixation of pay, the arrears shall be payable in
the manner indicated in Note 2 above and the monetary benefit of pension/family
pension or death-cum-retirement gratuity as the case may be shall be allowed
from the date of retirement/death."
The High Court took the view that the
provisions of Fundamental Rule 26 or Rule 40 of the Hyderabad Civil Services
Regulations have no application to cases falling within the ambit of the Act
and, therefore, there could be cases where grant of notional promotion should
not legitimately give rise to a valid claim for payment of arrears of salary
either on the ground that the officer did not actually hold the post at the relevant
time or otherwise. That principle could not be applied to the present case. A
wrong had been committed in unduly dealing the finalsation of seniority and
giving promotions thereto and hence denial of monetary benefits to them would
be arbitrary in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
normal circumstances when the retrospective promotions are effected all
benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an
officer who has been denied promotion earlier. However, on the reorganisation
of States a large number of officers stood allotted from different States to
the newly formed State and their services had to be intergrade on various
principles and several agencies were involved in the same. The steps to be taken
thereto were one of formulation of principles, publication of a provisional
inter-State seniority list, inviting objections thereto, consideration of those
objections in consultation with the Central Govt. and acting upon its
directions to bring the seniority list in conformity with such directions. This
entire exercise involved a good deal of time and gave rise to extraordinary
situation. It is in those circumstances that Rules contained in the Fundamental
Rule 26 or Rule 40 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Regulations have been
framed. As a matter of fact, rules of erstwhile State regarding seniority are
not applicable in the new State as allottees are governed by the Act and
seniority is finalised therein.
so, we do not see that there is any impediment to frame new rules affecting
conditions of service off such allottees but in conformity with the Act. Surely
new rules cannot be brushed aside by saying that they are not applicable to
cases coming under the Act. There is no contention either in the High Court or
before us that they are formed in contravention of the Act. In this background
we fail to see as to why the Rules are not applicable to the respondents as
held by the High Court.
result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court and
dismiss the writ petition.
there will be no order as to costs.