Gauhati High Court
WA/191/2017 on 7 November, 2022
GAHC010029922017
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 191 OF 2017
Commissioner of Excise Office Committee
A constituent of All Assam Heads of Department,
Ministerial Officers Association, Housefed Complex,
Dispur, Guwahati-781006, Assam represented by its
President, Shri Kameswar Rabha.
2. Shri Kameswar Rabha
Son of Mala Ram Rabha
Resident of Lokhra, Guwahati,
Dist. Kamrup, Assam,
........Appellants
-Versus-
1. Sri Bishnu Deo Roy,
S/O Lt. Ram Birajee Roy,
Page | 1
R/O- Birkuchi, P.O.- Narengi, Guwahati-20,
Assam
2. The State of Assam and others through the
Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise
Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6 Assam,
3. The Commissioner of Excise, Assam,
Housefed Complex, Dispur, Guwahati-6, Assam
4. The Joint Commissioner of Excise (EIB),
Assam, Housefed Complex, Dispur, Guwahati-6,
Assam.
5. Mehtab Hussain, Registrar,O/O- The
Commissioner of Excise, Assam, Housefed
Complex, Dispur, Guwahati-6, Assam.
6. Smti Suchitra Brahma, Superintendent, O/O-
The Commissioner of Excise, Assam, Housefed
Complex, Dispur, Guwahati-6, Assam.
7. Rohini Kanta Rajbongshi, Upper Division
Assistant, Office of the Chemical Examiner,
Assam, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati-21
........Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.M. CHHAYA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Page | 2
For the Appellants :Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Advocate
For the Respondents :Mr. R. Deka for R-1,
: Mr. A. Baruah, Advocate for R-3&4.
Date of Judgment & Order : 07.11.2022
JUDGMENT &ORDER
(Soumitra Saikia, J)
This writ appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order
dated 01.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P(C) No. 2395/2011. The writ petition was filed by the
petitioner with the following reliefs:
(1) To declare that ministerial staff in the office of the
Joint Commissioner of Excise, Assam, are part of ministerial
staff under the Head of the Department, i.e., Commissioner of
Excise, Assam;
(2) To direct the respondents to prepare a common
cadre-wise gradation list of all the ministerial staff under the
establishment of Commissioner of Excise, Assam;
Page | 3
(3) To direct the respondents to provide consequential
service benefits to the ministerial staff serving in the office of
the Joint Commissioner of Excise, Assam, following
preparation of common gradation list;
(4) To direct the respondents to promote the petitioner
to the post of Superintendent effective from the date on
which his juniors were promoted.
2. The case projected by the writ petitioner before the
learned Single Judge was that he was appointed as LDA-
cum-Typist by order dated 01.02.1978 issued by the
Chemical Examiner of Excise, Assam. Vide order dated
30.07.1988 passed by the Commissioner of Excise,
Assam, the petitioner was placed at the disposal of the
Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Assam and in his place
another person was placed temporarily as LDA-cum-
Typist at the disposal of Chemical Examiner (Excise),
Assam. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner was
utilized in the office of the Joint Commissioner of Excise,
Assam who was attached to the office of the
Commissioner of Excise, Assam. Vide order dated
Page | 4
06.03.1997 issued by the Commissioner of Excise, Assam,
the services of the petitioner was placed in the Office of
the Commissioner of Excise, Assam. However, by a
subsequent order dated 25.06.1997, the attachment of
the petitioner in the Office of the Commissioner of Excise,
Assam was withdrawn by the Commissioner of Excise.
The petitioner was granted the third stagnation increment
with effect from 01.02.2005 vide order dated 30.03.2005
by the Joint Commissioner of Excise, Assam. Thereafter,
by order dated 25.03.2008, issued by the Commissioner
of Excise, Assam, the petitioner and one Smt. Babita
Lahan were promoted to the post of UDA against the
existing vacancies in the office of the Joint Commissioner
of Excise. The petitioner submitted representation before
the Commissioner of Excise, Assam ventilating his
grievance that during his entire service career, he had the
benefit of only one promotion and that persons junior to
him had received prior promotion enabling them to
receive promotion to still higher post. The respondent No.
5, namely Smt. Suchitra Brahma, vide order dated
Page | 5
13.08.2007 issued by the Secretary to the Government of
Assam, Excise Department, was promoted to the post of
Superintendent. The promotion order was passed under
Rule 8 of the Assam Directorate Establishment
(Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973. According to the
petitioner, the said respondent No. 5 served as a UDA in
the office of the Commissioner of Excise and was junior
to the petitioner in so far as the length of service is
concerned. The petitioner along with other similarly
situated persons jointly submitted another representation
dated 23.09.2009 addressed to the Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Excise Department, requesting for
parity of pay equivalent to the pay-scale with staff in the
office of the Commissioner of Excise, Assam holding
equivalent post. Though the views of Commissioner of
Excise, Assam, was sought for by the Government vide
letter dated 29.04.2010 and by subsequent letters, no
response was forthcoming. Being aggrieved, the writ
petition was filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above.
Page | 6
3. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the parties
arrived at a finding that the Commissioner of Excise has
got overall control over the Ministerial Staff in any of the
three establishments namely, the Offices of the Chemical
Examiner (Excise), Joint Commissioner of Excise and the
Commissioner of Excise. The learned Single Judge
rejected the contentions of the Department that the
Offices of the Chemical Examiner (Excise) and the Joint
Commissioner of Excise are the separate establishments
and are treated as district establishments not within the
purview of the Head of Department i.e., Commissioner of
Excise. The learned Single Judge held that to accept the
contention of the respondent department that the
establishments of Chemical Examiner (Excise) and the
Joint Commissioner of Excise to not form a part of the
Head of Department, i.e., Commissioner of Excise, would
run counter to the views of the Apex Court relating to
career advancement of the employees as declared in the
case of Union of India Vs. Hemraj Singh Chouhan,
reported in (2010) 4 SCC 290 as well as the judgment
Page | 7
of this Court rendered in Tridip Namasudra Vs. State
of Assam reported in 2010 (5) GLT 39. The learned
Single Judge held that accepting the contentions of the
respondent department would result in complete service
stagnation of the ministerial staff serving in the office of
the Chemical Engineer (Excise) and the Joint
Commissioner of Excise. The writ petition was allowed
and the following consequential directions were issued by
the learned Single Judge:
(1) Ministerial staff serving in the offices of
Chemical Examiner (Excise)and Joint Commissioner of
Excise are required to be treated as part of the
ministerial staff of the establishment of Commissioner of
Excise, which is the Head of Department;
(2) Consequently, common gradation list of the
ministerial staff, cadre wise, would have to be prepared;
(3) Consequent upon preparation of such
gradation list, case of the petitioner for further
promotion beyond UDA (Senior Assistant) shall be
considered at par with his junior and if he is found
Page | 8
eligible for such promotion, notional promotion shall be
given which will entitle him to pension relatable to the
higher post and consequential financial benefits.
(4) The above exercise shall be carried out within
a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
4. Being aggrieved, the present writ appeal has been
filed by the appellants assailing the Judgment and Order
dated 01.12.2015 passed in W.P(C) No. 2395/2011 by the
learned Single Judge. The appellants were not party
respondents in the writ petition. They are an association
of ministerial employees of Assam Government and
claimed to be affected by the direction issued vide
impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
5. The appellants claimed to be affected primarily by
the direction for a common gradation list as directed by
the learned Single Judge vide the impugned Judgment
and Order. Accordingly, leave to appeal was filed and vide
order dated 08.08.2016 passed in I.A.(C) 957/2016
Page | 9
connected to the present writ appeal, the appellants were
granted leave to file the writ appeal. Subsequently, the
delay of 172 days which had occurred in filing the present
writ appeal was also condoned by this Court.
6. Before us, the appellants have urged that going by
the prayers made in the writ petition it is apparent that
the Office of the Commissioner of Excise, Assam and the
Offices of the Chemical Examiner/ Joint Commissioner are
separate establishments and the ministerial staff in the
said offices have all along been governed by different
conditions of service. According to the appellants, the
learned Single Judge passed the directions for a common
gradation list inter alia, upon wrong interpretation of the
provisions of the Assam Directorate Establishment
(Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Rules of 1973"). The appellants urged that the
effect of the impugned Judgment and Order is that the
Offices of the Chemical Examiner/ Joint Commissioner
have also been brought under the purview of the 1973
Rules. The appellants urged that the ministerial staff in
Page | 10
the Offices of the Chemical Examiner/Joint Commissioner
are covered by the Assam Ministerial District
Establishment Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Rules of 1967"). However, by erroneous
interpretation given by the learned Single Judge, the
Offices of the Chemical Examiner(Excise)/ Joint
Commissioner are also brought under the purview of the
1973 Rules although they come under the purview of the
1967 Rules only.
7. The appellants urged that certain orders passed by
the Commissioner of Excise in respect of the writ
petitioner/ respondent No. 1 regarding the utilization of
his services, cannot have the effect of bringing the
services of the petitioner/respondent No. 1 within the
purview of 1973 Rules inasmuch as even under the 1967
rules, certain powers are conferred of the Commissioner
of Excise and it is under those powers that the
Commissioner of Excise had passed certain orders relating
to the utilization of the services of the respondent No. 1.
Page | 11
8. It is urged by the appellants that notwithstanding
the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that
there was "no declaration" as envisaged under Rule 2(C)
of the 1973 Rules that the Offices of the Chemical
Examiner (Excise) and the Joint Commissioner of Excise
are district offices under the control of the Commissioner
of Excise, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold
that the ministerial staff of the Offices of the Chemical
Examiner/Joint Commissioner would be governed by the
1973 Rules. The appellants urged that there was a long
standing practice followed in the Department of
Commissioner of Excise that ministerial staff in the offices
of the Chemical Examiner/Joint Commissioner are
governed by the 1967 Rules whereas the ministerial staff
under the Office of the Commissioner of Excise come
under the purview of 1973 Rules. It is strongly urged on
behalf of the appellants that under the Rule 2(C) of the
1973 Rules, a declaration is required to be given for any
district offices to come into existence and it is only upon
such a declaration being issued by the competent
Page | 12
authority that any district offices under the Commissioner
of Excise will come to be governed by the 1973 Rules.
However, in spite of the finding arrived at by the learned
Single Judge that there was no such declaration that the
offices of Chemical Examiner (Excise)/ Joint
Commissioner of Excise are district offices under the
control of the Commissioner of Excise, the learned Single
Judge ought not to have issued the directions in the
impugned Judgment. The appellants rely on the
Judgment of the Apex Court in Onkar Lal Bajaj Vs.
Union of India reported in (2003) 2 SCC 673 to
contend that where two views are possible, the view
adopted by the Government will prevail. Reliance is also
placed on the Judgments of the Apex Court rendered in
N. Suresh Nathan Vs. Union of India reported in
1992 Supp (1) SCC 584 and Shailendra Dania Vs.
S.P. Dubey reported in (2007) 5 SCC 535, to contend
that where two views are possible, while interpreting the
provisions of Rules, the view which has the support of the
uniformly followed practice will prevail. It is submitted
Page | 13
that on the basis of the contentions urged, the impugned
Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge
being rendered upon erroneous interpretation of the 1973
Rules, the same is bad in law and it should be therefore,
suitable interfered with and quashed.
9. The respondent No. 1 disputed the contentions
raised by the appellants and submitted that there is no
infirmity in the Judgment dated 01.12.2015 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 2395/2011. The
respondent No. 1 contended that his services were
initially placed at the disposal of the Offices of the Joint
Commissioner of Excise and Deputy Commissioner of
Excise by virtue of the orders passed by the
Commissioner of Excise. Furthermore, his services were
also utilized by the Office of the Commissioner of Excise
by virtue of the orders passed by the Commissioner of
Excise. It is contended that the ministerial staffs working
under the three wings namely, Commissioner of Excise,
Joint Commissioner of Excise and Chemical Examiner
(Excise) are of interchangeable placements and the same
Page | 14
are carried out upon such orders as may be passed by
the Commissioner of Excise as the Head and the
controlling authority of the establishment. The
respondent No. 1 contended that by the order dated
25.03.2008, he was promoted to the post of UDA by the
Commissioner of Excise. It is further contended that
under Rule 2(c), since there is no declaration that the
offices of the Joint Commissioner of Excise and Chemical
Examiner (Excise) are notified as "District Offices" under
Rule 2(C) of the 1973 Rules, there is no question of the
applicability of the Rules of 1967 in so far as the
respondent No. 1 is concerned. Since the Commissioner
of Excise is the Head of the Department and the
controlling authority and as the ministerial staff under the
three wings are interchangeable, it is the Rules of 1973
which are applicable and the same has been correctly
held and applied by the learned Single Judge. It is
submitted that the Writ Appeal is therefore, devoid of any
merit and the same should therefore be dismissed
accordingly.
Page | 15
10. The respondents No. 3 & 4, namely the Excise
Department support the contentions raised by the
appellants. According to the respondents No. 3 & 4, since
the Offices of the Joint Commissioner of Excise and the
Chemical Examiner (Excise), Assam have not been
notified by the Government of Assam as the Head of the
Excise Department, the employees of the said two
establishments are governed by the Rules of 1967 and
not by the Rules of 1973 as held by the learned Single
Judge. It is contended that the Offices of the
Commissioner of Excise, Assam and the Chemical
Examiner (Excise), Assam are individual and separate
from each other with separate drawl, pay-scale and
Disbursal Officers.
It is contended that since both the Office are
separate and distinct, the staff of both the Offices belong
to different cadre and therefore, the staff of one office
cannot claim parity in promotion with the staff of the
other office. The entry level qualifications are also
different. It is also contended that in the absence of any
Page | 16
declaration as required under the Rule 2(C) of the 1973
Rules, the staff of the district establishment cannot be
treated as equal to that of the Head of the Department.
It is contended that since the ministerial staff under the
Commissioner of Excise and the ministerial staff under the
offices of the Joint Commissioner of Excise/ Chemical
Examiner (Excise) are distinct and separate, they are
governed by two separate set of Rules. There is a
separate gradation list for the staff of the Commissioner
of Excise as well as the Chemical Examiner (Excise),
therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the
services of the respondent No. 1 are governed under the
Rules of 1973 and not by the Rules of the 1967 is
erroneous and therefore, liable to be set aside and
quashed.
11. The learned counsels for the parties have been
heard. Pleadings on record have been carefully perused.
The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
01.12.2015 impugned in the present appeal is also
carefully perused.
Page | 17
12. We have also carefully perused The Assam
Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Services Rules,
1973 and The Assam Ministerial District Establishment
Service Rules, 1967.
13. The Rules of 1973 are made under Article 309 and
are applicable to the ministerial staff of the offices of the
Heads of Departments as mentioned in column (i) of
scheduled 1.
Under Clause 2(a)(iii), it is provided that
"appointing authority: means: Head of the Department as
indicated under column (1) of the Schedule I in respect of
posts of [Senior Assistant, Junior Assistant]
Under Rule 2(c), "District Offices" means and
includes the different district offices of district and other
offices declared as such under the controlling authority of
the officer as indicated under column (1) of the Schedule
I;
Rule 2(e), "Member of the Service" means a
member of the ministerial service in the respective offices
Page | 18
appointed to the service either before or after the
commencement of these rules;
Rule 2(g):" Service" means the ministerial service in
the respective office where the member serves;
Under Rule 3. "Service"
(1) There shall be combined cadre of
administrative officers for the offices
mentioned in column (1) of Schedule I.
Note:- The offices for which such posts will be
created may be determined by Government
from time to time and that on the
commencement of the rules the offices where
such posts are in categories of posts-
(2) The service in an office shall comprise of the
following categories of posts-
(a) Registrar;
(b) Superintendent;
(c) [Senior Assistant];
(d) [Junior Assistant];
Page | 19
(e) Typists-
(i) Selection Grade,
(ii) [(ii) Deleted]
[Note;- After the commencement of the
Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial)
Service (Amendment) Rules, 1987, there shall be no
further appointment to the post of Selection Grade
Typist and this category of post shall be filled up by
(Junior Assistant] after the existing incumbents
retire or finally cease to hold the posts:]
Provided that the entertainment of a post of
Registrar or Superintendent in an office shall be
subject to the yardstick of staff fixed is by
Government under general order from time to time
(3) Each of the categories of posts mentioned in
sub-rule (2) shall from an independent cadre.
Members of a lower cadre shall have no claim
for appointment to any of the higher cadres
Page | 20
except in accordance with the provisions
made in these rules."
14. Under Schedule-I at serial No. 36, the Office of the
Commissioner of Excise is shown as the Head of the
Department. Similarly, in Schedule-4 "Under the lists of
Heads of Departments", the Commissioner of Excise is
shown as Serial No. 12.
15. The Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service
Rules, 1967 are also Article 309 Rules and it is for
regulating recruitment and conditions of service of person
appointed to the Assam District Ministerial Establishment
Service. Definitions as provided under Rule 2 of 1967
Rules are extracted below:
"2. Definitions:- In these rules unless there
is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-
(1) "appointing authority" means-
(a) the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt.
of Assam, General Administration (B) department,
Page | 21
the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam General
Administration (B) Department in case of
appointment to the post of Administrative Officer
and Revenue Sheristadar;]
(b) Deputy Commissioner in the case of
appointment to all other ministerial posts in the
District Establishment;
(2) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner
of the Division in which the District is included;
(3) "Deputy Commissioner" means the Deputy
Commissioner of the District;
(4) "District establishment" means and
includes all non-gazetted ministerial staff in the
offices of the Deputy Commissioner, Sub-divisional
Officers [and] Sub-Deputy Collectors of the [**] of
the District;
Note:-Offices of the Deputy Commissioner
and Sub-divisional Offices shall include branches
Page | 22
like Supply, Textile, Election, revenue, Excise,
Development and other general branches.
5. "Government" means the Government of
Assam;
(6) "Member of the service" means a member
of the Assam Ministerial District Establishment
Service;
(7) "Sub-Divisional Officer" means the Officer-
in-charge of the general administration of a Sub-
division of a District;
(8) "Sub-Deputy Collector" means the Officer
placed in charge of a Revenue Circle;
(9) "Service" means the Assam Ministerial
District Establishment Service;
(10) "Year" means the English Calendar year;
[(11) "Commission" means the Public Service
Commission]"
Page | 23
16. It is clear from the perusal of the Rules as extracted
above that the Rules of 1967 are meant for regulating
recruitment and conditions of service of persons who are
appointed to the District establishment. And District
establishment is defined under Rule 2(4) as extracted
above. In the note appended to Rule 2(4), it is also
provided that the Offices of the Deputy Commissioner and
the Sub-divisional officer shall include branches like
Supply, Textile, Elections, Revenue, Excise, Development
and other general branches. These rules do not laid down
any prescription that the same should be applicable to
any other office other than "District establishment" as
defined under Rule 2(4).
17. The Rules of 1973 are also Article 309 rules which
are made for regulating recruitment and conditions and
services of persons appointed of the ministerial services
under the various offices of the Heads of departments of
the Government of Assam. The 1973 Rules have
elaborately laid down the provisions, which will govern
the recruitment and conditions of services of the
Page | 24
ministerial staff working under the various Heads of
department as prescribed under Schedule-I appended to
the Rules. Serial No. 36 of Schedule -I appended to the
Rules show "Commissioner of Excise" as the Head of
Department in respect of the Excise Department.
Similarly, under Schedule-IV appended to the Rules, the
list of the Heads of Departments are shown. At Serial No.
12 of Schedule-IV, Commissioner of Excise is shown as
the Head of the Department.
18. From the perusal of the provisions of 1967 Rules as
well as the Rules of 1973, it is evident that these two sets
of Rules prescribe for regulating appointment and
governing service conditions of ministerial staffs.
The Rules of 1967 applies to the ministerial staff
appointed under the District Establishments.
Under the said Rules "District Establishments" is
defined to mean and include all non-gazetted ministerial
staff in the offices of the Deputy Commissioner, Sub-
divisional Officer, Sub-Deputy Collector of the District.
Page | 25
There is no prescription under the Rules of 1967 that the
same would be applicable to other departments, more
particularly, the Department of Excise as the same is
relevant for the purposes of the present proceedings.
The definition under Rule 2 make it abundantly
clear the prescription of the Rules regarding the
appointing authorities. There is no prescription under
Rules that the same would be applicable to the various
Heads of Department under the Government of Assam.
The employees in respect of whom the Rules of 1967 is
applicable are clearly under prescribed under the rule
2(4) as discussed above.
19. On the other hand, the Rules of 1973 clearly
prescribe that these Rules shall regulate recruitments and
conditions of service of persons appointed to the
ministerial service in the various officers of the Heads of
department in the Government of Assam. Rule 2(a)(3)
thereof prescribes that 'appointing authority' in respect of
the post of 'Senior Assistant' and 'Junior Assistant' to be
Page | 26
the Head of Department as indicated under column 1 of
schedule-I. Column 1 of schedule-I, at serial No. 36
shows Commissioner of Excise as the Head of
Department. The Post of Senior Assistant and Junior
Assistant were earlier known as 'Upper Division Assistant'
and 'Lower Division Assistant' and the same was re-
designated as 'Senior Assistant' and 'Junior Assistant' vide
the Notification No. ABP. 59/2000/51 dated 18.11.2006
(w.e.f. 12.04.2006)
20. The appellant before us as well as the respondent
department have not been able to refer to any
Rules/Orders/OMs to support their contentions that the
Rules of 1967 and not the Rules of 1973 are applicable in
cases of ministerial staff under the Head of the
Department and the Commissioner of Excise, Government
of Assam and its subordinate offices. The contentions of
the appellants as well as the respondents No. 2 & 3 that
in terms of Rule 2(c) a declaration by the controlling
authority is necessary to the effect that "district offices"
will include the different district offices of the district
Page | 27
officers and other officers and no such declaration having
been made, the ministerial staff under the office of the
Chemical Examiner (Excise)/Joint Commissioner are
excluded from the purview of 1973 Rules is incorrect and
the same cannot therefore be accepted.
21. A perusal of these Rules along with the schedules
appended to the Rules made it abundantly clear that in
respect of the Heads of Department of the Government of
Assam as prescribed under Schedule-I, the ministerial
staff attached of those offices are to be governed by
these Rules of 1973. The prescription under Rule (2) (c)
for any such declaration of "District Offices", are meant to
include such district offices as may be available under a
particular Head of department under the Government of
Assam.
22. There is no supporting documents placed before the
learned Single Judge or before this Court by the appellant
as well as the respondents No. 2 & 3 to support their
contentions that under the head of Department of
Page | 28
"Commissioner of Excise", Government of Assam, there
are district offices and which are required to be declared
by declaration as prescribed under Rule 2(c). There is
also no such material placed before the learned Single
Judge or before this Court to support their contention
that the offices of Chemical Examiner (Excise)/ Joint
Commissioner are to be treated as District Establishment
and therefore, the declaration prescribed under Rule 2(c)
is necessary to include the employees of such offices
under the purview of 1973 Rules. The so-called long
standing practice stated to have been followed in the
department as contended by the appellants as well as by
the respondents No. 2 & 3 is an omnibus statement
unsubstantiated by any such Office Memorandum or
Departmental Orders. There is also no document placed
before this Court that in so far as the service conditions of
the ministerial staff employed under the offices of
Chemical Examiner (Excise)/Joint Commissioner, they are
to be governed by the 1967 Rules and that the same has
been adopted by the Department of Excise for regulating
Page | 29
the appointment and service conditions of such
employees. Any such practice stated to have been
followed by the Department must be based upon some
Rule or some executive instruction in the absence of any
such Rules. No such material has been placed before this
Court to suggest the necessity of the Department to
follow the practice of applying the 1967 Rules in respect
of the service conditions of the ministerial staff employed
under the Head of the Department which is the
Commissioner of Excise, in the present case.
23. In the absence of any documents/Office
Order/Executive instructions placed before this Court in
support of the contentions made by the appellants and
the respondents No. 2 & 3, the findings arrived at by the
learned Single Judge vide the impugned Judgment dated
01.12.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 2395/2011 cannot be
faulted with. The learned single Judge has passed a
reasoned order by correctly interpreting the Rules of 1973
vis-a-vis Rules of 1967.
Page | 30
24. We subscribe to the views of the learned Single
Judge that it is the Rules of 1973 which will govern the
service conditions of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner.
25. In view of our findings and discussions made above,
the Judgments relied upon by the appellants do not come
to their aid as they have no application to the facts of the
present proceedings.
26. In view of all the above, we uphold the Judgment
and Order dated 01.12.2015 passed in W.P(C) No.
2395/2011 by the learned Single Judge and the directions
contained therein. There is no merit in the appeal and the
same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
Page | 31
