'24 Years Have Gone By': SC Dismisses Plea Against 'Merger Of Cadres' Order Passed In 1999
|The Supreme Court dismissed plea challenging an order passed in 1999 vide which the staff in Adult Education Department was merged in Education Department and category-wise seniority was provided.
The Court dismissed appeals filed against the Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had dismissed writ petitions filed against the 1999 order.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal said, “Twenty-four years have gone by. Number of promotions have taken place in between and many of the officers have retired after attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise are not in service for other reasons. … we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.”
Advocate Vikas Upadhyay represented the appellants while ASG K.M. Nataraj represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in a Writ Appeal was under challenge before the Apex Court vide which the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court was upheld. The writ petitions were filed by the appellants-employees praying for quashing of the order dated April 9, 1999 and the Single Bench had opined that merger of cadres was a policy decision which cannot generally be interfered with. The argument raised by the writ petitioners before the High Court was that there could a better policy, could not be a ground to quash the same. The level of posts being merged was examined and it was opined that these were at the same level.
The Division Bench had also recorded a categoric finding to that effect and it was opined that the post of Assistant Director in Adult Education Department carried the same responsibilities as that of Assistant Director in the Education Department. Though there used to be slight difference of the pay scales, however that was also brought at par w.e.f. January 1, 1996. Even the Single Bench had also noticed that the State Government had considered the entire gamut of facts including educational qualifications, duties and responsibilities and pay scales before directing merger of the two cadres.
The Supreme Court in the above regard observed, “It was further pointed out at the time of hearing by learned counsel for the State that there were 17 writ petitioners before the High Court challenging the merger. Their placement in the seniority of Assistant Directors in the Education Department as on 01.01.2000 was at Sr. Nos. 48, 215, 250, 271, 536, 537, 543, 551, 559, 577, 579, 580, 588, 589, 594 and 595. The said fact was not disputed at the time of hearing by learned counsel for the appellants. It shows that the first person in the seniority to challenge the merger was at Sr. No. 48. Thereafter, the next person was after a gap of 167 persons and then came Sr. Nos. 250, 271 and 536 onwards.”
The Court noted that the other officers in the cadre who may be likely to be affected immediately with the merger, were not aggrieved with the action of the State.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.
Cause Title- Prafful Shukla and Others v. Government of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 1061)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Arjun Singh Tomar, Ankita Kashyap, Kubber Boddh, Madhurima Tatia, Rajani K Prasad, and AOR B. Krishna Prasad.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh Patwalia, AAG Saurabh Mishra, AOR Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocates Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar, Argha Roy, Gaurav Kumar, Advocates Amol Chitale and Sarthak Sharma, AOR Nirnimesh Dube.