Holding

The clause in the rationalisation scheme that counts seniority only from the date of conversion of the schools into government schools is void; service from 26 January 1950 must be treated as government service.

Summary

B.K. Mohapatra, an assistant teacher appointed in a 'B' type High School in 1953, challenged a 1964 rationalisation scheme that counted his seniority only from the date the schools were converted into government schools (June 1, 1964) and dealt with the contributory provident fund. The State of Orissa argued that the 1949 order regulating 'B' schools was an "act of State" and could not be questioned. The Supreme Court held that the "act of State" defence is inapplicable to a citizen who joined service after the Constitution came into force and that the scheme’s clause resetting seniority was irrational and void. Consequently, the Court directed the State to treat service from January 26, 1950 as government service and to prepare a seniority list for promotions, while leaving the provident‑fund issue to the State. The High Court’s order was modified accordingly.

Issues considered

The validity of the clause in the 1964 rationalisation scheme that reckoned seniority of teachers from the date of conversion of schools into government schools.
Whether the 1949 order regulating 'B' type schools can be invoked as an "act of State" defence to bar judicial review by a citizen who joined service after the Constitution.
The legality of the provisions relating to the contributory provident fund (though not finally decided).

Legislation cited

Constitution of India

Subjects

teacher serviceseniorityrationalisation schemeintegration of servicesact of Stateconstitutional lawpublic employmentprovident funddiscrimination

Judgment

B.K. MOHAPATRA
A
v.
STATE OF ORISSA

OCTOBER 28, 1987

B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.

Teacher's service matter-Rationalisation scheme for integration
of services of teachers in different types of schools-Dispute regarding
terms thereof relating to seniority and contributory Provident Fund. Act
of State.
c A nnmber of the princely States, situated within the territories of
the present State of Orissa, were merged with effect from January 1,
1948, with the Province of Orissa as it then existed. On such merger,
the High Schools within the said princely States came under the juris-
diction of the Province of Orissa. The Schools belonged to two
D categories--' A' type schools which were full-fledged High schools send-
ing candidates for the Matriculation examination and 'B' type schools
which were incomplete schools, not sending candidates for the Matricu·
lation examination. On the said schools being taken over by the Pro-
vince of Orissa .the teachers of the schools came under the control of the
Government of Orissa. The Orissa Government issued a letter dated
E 5.1.1949 to the Director of Public Instruction in connection with the
subject of regulation of the services of the teachers.

The appellant was an assistant teacher in one of the 'B' type
schools on June 15, 1953, after the commencement of the Constitution
of India, and continued to work as such in the 'B' type school till August
F 1, 1964, when the State Government of Orissa published a rationalisa·
-
tion scheme for integrating the services of the teachers in the different
types of High Schools in the State. Aggrieved by the terms of the
Scheme relating to (i) the seniority of the teachers working in the 'B'
·~
l
type High Schools and (ii). The contributory Provident Fund, the appel-
lant filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court upheld the
G validity of the Scheme and dismissed the Petition, while recommending,
however, to the Government to modify the terms relating to the Provi·
dent Fund Scheme applicable to the teachers of 'B' type High Schools.
The appellant then moved this Court by special leave against the deci-
sion of the High Court.

H Disposing of the appeal, the Court,
650
B.K. MOHAPATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA 651

HELD: It is true that till the commencement of the Constitution
A
of India, the position of the 'B' type High Schools and the teachers
working in them was being requlated in accordance with the terms
contained in the order dated 5.1.1949. But on the commencement of the
Constitution of India, all the territories which immediately before the
commencement of the Constitution were either comprised in the
Province of Orissa or were being administrated as if they formed part B
of that Province, became and constituted the State of Orissa. The State
Government was under obligation to discharge its executive functions
with respect to education in respect of all the schools including 'B' type
High Schools. A High school which once belonged to a princely state
became a Government High School with effect from the commencement
of the Constitution and it could not be anything else and the teachers
working therein became teachers holding posts under the Government. c
It is well-settled that the doctrine of an "act of State" cannot be pleaded
by a State as a defence against its own citizens. An 'act of State' is an
act done in relation to a foreigner by a Sovereign power of a country.
Such an act cannot be questioned in any court of law, but such a
situation would not arise between the State Government and a D
citizen like the appellant who joined service after the commencement
of the Constitution. The High Court was in error in upholding the
plea that the order dated 5.1.1949 could not be questioned by the
appellant who had joined service after the commencement of the
Constitution. [657A-E, GH; 658A]
E
There is also no rational basis for refusing to give the benefit of

- the service rendered by a teacher working in a 'B' type High school
after January 26, 1950, either for purposes of seniority or for purposes
of computing the retirement benefits. It may be open to the State .
Government, while integrating the services of teachers working in diffe-
rent kinds of institutions, to introduce a scheme of rationalisation which F
may have the effect of modifying the conditions of service of different
groups of government servants. But the Government cannot by a stroke
of pendeny the benefit of the entire past service rendered by one group
of such government servants. The effect of the government scheme was
that all the teachers who had been in Government Schools immediately
prior to June 1 1964-the date of coversion of the High Schools to G
government schools--became senior to the teachers working in-the 'B'
type High Schools, Ex-District Board High Schools and Ex-Anchal High
Schools. The scheme appears to be an irrational one. The High Court
was in error in upholding the terms of the scheme in so far as the
question of the seniority was concerned. The judgment of the High
Court, in so far as the validity of the terms of the scheme, pertaining to H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] . I S.C.R.

A seniority of the te3chers in the schools referred to in it, is concerned, is ~
reversed. the clause in the scheme which reads: "But for the purpose of
reckoning their seniority in. Government service, their services will be
counted from the date of conversion of the schools into Gl'" •nment 4

schools" is void. The State government is directed to treat, on and after
, January, 26, 1950, the service of the teachers of the 'B' type High
B schools, ex-District Board High Schools and ex-Anchal High Schools as
the service under the State Government. It is open to the State Govern-
ment to evolve a reasonable formula for integrating the cadres of these ')I:- ·
teachers with the cadres of the teachers in the High Schools which have
been under the Government all along. Before bringing about such an
integration, the government may formulate reasonable principles for
equating the posts in the Government High Schools with the posts in the
C 'B' type High Schools, ex-District Board High Schools and ex-Anchal ~
High School~bh"al~t~ng retgarid ttoh th ~ mhtinifmthum q~dali~ca~io n fotrhthe posts,
1
pay, respons1 1 1 1es, e c. n e 1g o e sa1 prmc1p es, e govern· 1 \_

ment shall prepare a seniority list, whereafter it shall proceed to make
promotions of the teachers to the higher cadre. In view of the stand
D taken by ,counsel for the appellant aild other teachers in 'B' type High
schools, I ex-District Board High Schools and the ex-Anchal High
schools, regarding their not insisting upon promotions with retros-
pective effect, etc., the State government shall promote these teachers
to the higher posts as and when the vacancies arise hereafter, on the
basis of their rank in the seniority list, if they are found fit for such
E promotion. The government is at liberty, if it finds it convenient, to
treat, as submitted by the teachers' counsel, the two groups ·or teachers
as belonging.to separate cadres and reserve certain percentage of posts
for being filled up only by the teachers of 'B' type High Schools,
ex-District Board High Schools and ex-Anchal. High schools, as was
the case in State of Punjab v: Joginder Singh, [1963 (Supp. 2) SCR
·.F 169). The order of the High Court Is modified to the above extent and
··,.,the State Government shall prepare the seniority list and make promo- ~
tions accordingly within six months in the light of the above obser- 1~
vations; [659C-G; 660C-H; 661A-D] .

. No opinion is expressed on the question of Contributory Provi·
G dent Fund Scheme, the same having .be'en satisfactorily settled by the
State. [661D-E]

Johnstone v. Pedlar, [1921] 2 A.C. 262, referred to.
i

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 661
H of 1971. .
B.K. MOHAPATRA v. STATE OFORISSA [VENKATARAMIAH,J.) 653

-· From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.1969 of the Orissa
High Court in O.J.C. No. 165 of 1966.

S.P. Pandey for the Appellanr.
A

G.S. Chatterjee for Respondent No. I.
B
R.K. Garg andJ.R. Dass for Respondent No. 2.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
oc
VENKATARAMIAH, J. With effect from 1.1.1948 a number of
princely States which were situated within the territories of the present
c
~f State of orissa were merged with the Province of Orissa as it then
existed. On such merger the High Schools within the said princely
States also came under the jurisdiction of the Province of Orissa. The
said High Schools belonged to two categories-namely 'A' type
schools which were full-fledged High Schools which were actually
sending candidates for the matriculation examination and 'B' type
schools which were incomplete schools not sending candidates for the
.D
matriculation examination. On the said High Schools being taken over
by the Province of Orissa, the teachers serving in the said High Schools
came under the control of the Government of Orissa. It then became
necessary to make an order to regulate the services of the said
teachers. The Government of Orissa in ·the Education Department E
issued a letter dated 5. I. 1949 to the Director of Public Instruction on
the subject. The relevant pertion thereof is extracted below:-

- "In the States the High Schools other than those at
District Headquarters mentioned above will be of two
types. The complete High Schools will be 'A' type High F
Schools and the incomplete High Schools 'B • type High
~ Schools.

The 'A' type schools will be similar to Government
High Schools other than those at District Headquarters.
The services of the staff of such High Schools will be pen- G
sionable and transferable and the teachers will get pay and
dearness allowances at the rates prescribed for Govern-
"-.( ment servants. Government will bear the whole of the re-
curring and non-recurring costs.

'B' type High Schools will be Government managed. H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988) 1 S.C.R.

The staff will get pay and allowances at rates presofibed for
A
Government servants. The Headmasters of those schools
will be in the upper division of the S.E.S. The services of
those teachers will not be pensionable. They will have the
benefits of the Contributory Provident Fund to which
Government will contribute at the rate of Re. 1 in the
B rupee of the salary; As regards recurring expenses of those
schools Government will meet the difference between the
standard cost and income from fees and other local sub-
scriptions. As regards non-recurring expenditure Govern-
ment will meet two-thirds of the cost.
The standard cost for the 'B' type Government man-
c aged High Shools will consist of the following items:-

(a)
(b) The total contribution on Provident Fund
deposited at the rate of Re.-/ 1/- in the rupee, and
D
(c) ........................................... .

The Inspector of Schools will be the managing agent
on behalf of the Government and the Headmaste~ will be
the correspondent of a 'B' type Government managed High
E School."
The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a ;>ay of
Rs.70 per month in the pay scale of Rs.70-140 plus admissible dearne<<
allowance in one of the 'B' type High Schools by the Inspector of
Schools on 15.6.1953 after the commencement of the Constitution of
India. He continued to work as an Assistant Teacher in one or the
-
F other of the 'B' type High Schools to which he was transferred until
August 1, 1964 when the State Government published a rationalisation
scheme for integrating the services of the teachers in different types of
High Schools in the State of Orissa, namely, Zilla Schools, 'A' type
Government High Schools, 'B' type High Schools, Ex-District Board
High Schools and_ Ex-Anchal High Schools hereinafter collectively
G referred to as integrated High Schools. The relevant part of the
scheme reads thus:-"No. 18027-E Government of Orissa
Education Department Resolution
1st Aug., 1964
Sub:-Rationalisation of High
H Schools in the State.
B.K. MOHAPATRA v. STATEOFORISSA [VENKATARAM!AH,J.[ 655

- Government have under their own management quite
a few types of High Schools in which conditions of service
of the employees vary category to category. This ununi-
A

formity in the patterns and in the conditions of service has
not only evoked public criticism but also created certain
administrative difficulties and tends to lowering of stan-
<lards in the institutions. It is for these reasons that Govern- B
ment had for some time past under their consideration the
--\ question of rationalisation of the following different types
of High Schools in the State whose number is noted against
each.
"'
1. Zilla Schools -18
_,1__. 2. 'A' type Govt. High School. -52 c
3. 'B' type High Schools -22
4. Ex-District Board High Schools. -17
5. Ex-Anchal High Schools. - 6
After careful consideration Government have now
decided that the five types of High Schools mentioned D
above should be converted into a single type of Govt.
School with effect from 1st June, 1964.
Since the employees of the ·~· type High Schools are
in receipt of pay and allowances on the scales applicable to
Government servants the question of fixation of their pay
and allowances does not arise. They will continue to draw E
their salary that they are drawing on the date of con-

- version.
In respect of the incumbents of 'B' type High Schools
who are governed by the contributory provident fund rules,
their subscriptions, if any, in the fund together with the F
._( Government contribution on the date of conversion may
either be refunded to them or be credited to the General
Provident Fund account to be opened afresh according to
their option and all the employees may be brought under
the Orissa General Provident Fund Rules'. After conver-
sion Government shall not contribute anything towards the G
Employees' Contributory Provident Fund. All the emp-
loyees of 'B' type High Schools will be brought over to
pensionable service from the date of conversion of the
Schools into Government Schools.

.................................................... H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] 1 S.C.R.

The seniority of the 'B' type, Ex-District Board and
A
Ex-Anchal Schools as among themselves will be determined
by their length of continuous service in their respective
cadres in the old Schools. But for the purpose of reckoning
their seniority in Government service, their services will be
counted from the date of conversion of the Schools into
B Government schools .............. "
(Underlining by us)

Aggrieved by the terms of the rationalisation scheme referred to
above relating to (i) the Contributory Provident Fund and (ii) the
seniority of teachers who were working in 'B' type High Schools, the
C appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa questioning
the discriminatory treatment meted out to him and other teachers in
'B' type High Schools. The appellants contended that even though he
had been appointed in a 'B' type High School he should be treated as
having entered the service under the State Government on 15.6.1953
when he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a 'B' type High
I) School, that the clause in the scheme of 1964 which provided that for
the purpose of reckoning seniority in Government service the services
of teachers in 'B' type High Schools would be counted from the date of
conversion of the schools into Government schools which had the
effect of wiping of thel previous service put in by them in the said
schools was discriminatory and that the terms relating to the Con-
E tributary Provident Fund were invalid. The petition was resisted by
the State Government pleading inter alia that the decision of the Gov-
ernment dated 5. 1.1949 being an 'act of State' its effect could not be
challenged by the appellant even though he had entered service in the
year 1953. The High Court upheld the validity of the scheme and
dismissed the writ petition. It, however, recommended to the Govern-
F ment to modify the terms relating to the Provident Fund scheme appli-
cable to the teachers of 'B' type High Schools. Aggrieved by the judg-
ment of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by special
leave.

It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the State Government
'} was wrong in treating him as having entered the service under the State
Government only from June 1, 1964 although he had been appointed
by the Inspector of Schools in the year 1953. It is argued that merely
because the appellant was appointed in a 'B' type High School which
once belonged to a princely State he could not be denied the benefits
available to all other teachers in Government service. It is further
H submitted that the case of the Government that the Government was
B.K.MOHAPATRA v. STATEOFORJSSA [VENKATARAMIAH,J.] 657

running 'B' schools as merely agents was wholly untenable.
A
It is no doubt true that the 'B' type High Schools were formerly
in the princely States and that on the merger of the States the then
Government of the Province of Orissa passed an order on 5.1.1949
stating that the 'B' type High Schools would be governed and managed
by the Inspector of Schools on behalf of the Government and the B
Headmasters would be the correspondents of 'B' type Government
managed High Schools. It is also true that till the commencement of

-..,_e
the Constitution of India the position of 'B' type High Schools and the
teachers working jn them were being regulated in accordance with the
terms contained in the order dated 5.1.1949. But on the commence-
& ment of the Constitution of India all the territories which immediately
before the commencement of the Constitution were either comprised c
- in the Province of Orissa or were being administered as if they formed
part of that Province became and constituted the State of Orissa (vide
Entry No. IO in the First Schedule to the Constitution of India.) The
State Government was under an obligation to discharge its executive
functions with respect to education by virtue of Entry 11 of the D
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution as it then existed in respect of all
the schools including 'B' type schools. A High School which once
belonged to the princely states became a Government High School
l with effect from the commencement of the Constitution and it could
not be anything else. The Inspector of Schools could no longer func-
-----.: tion as the managing agent on behalf of the State Government and the E
'B' type High School could no longer be a 'Government managed High

-
School'. The teachers working therein became teachers holding posts
under the Government since there was no other authority which
owned the 'B' type High Schools after January 26, 1950 because there
were no territories within th~ State of Orissa which could be consi-
dered as territories administered by the Government as if they formed F
a part of the State which was the case until January 26, 1950. Though
the princely States were subject to the paramountcy of the British
Crown, they were considered to be foreign States by the British Indian
Provinces. Any action taken in respect of them or their subjects by the
British Indian Provinces was an act of State but its effect could not be
extended beyond January 26, 1950 because after that date there was no G
longer any foreign Government. The princely States had gone out of
existence. It is well-settled that the doctrine of an 'act of State' cannot
be pleaded by a State as a defence against its own citizens. An 'act of
State' is an act done in relation to a foreigner by the sovereign power
of a country or its agent either previously authorised or subsequently
ratified. Such an act cannot be questioned or made the subject of legal H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] 1 S.C.R.
(
A proceedings in any Court of law. But such a situation would not arise
between the State Government and a citizen like the appellant who ''r
joined service after the commencement of the Constitution.

It is appropriate to refer here to the decision of the House of
Lords in Johnstone v. Pedlar, (1921] 2 A.C. 262 in which the nature of
B an 'act of State' arose for consideration. Lord Atkinson observed at
pages 278-279 thus:

"The best definition, I think, of an act of State, as
well as the descriptions of the consequences flowing from'
it, is that given in the judgment of Lord Kingsdown in the
case of Secretary of State for India v. Kamachee Boye~
c Sahaba. (13 Moo. P.C. 22). In that case, the Rajah of
Tanjore, a native independent sovereign, who was, by vir- .-
tue of certain treaties, under the protection of the East "
India Company, in exercise of their sovereign power and in
trust for the British Government, seized the Raj of Tanjore
D and the whole property of the deceased Rajah as an escheat,
on the ground that the dignity of the Raj was extinct for
want of a male heir, and that this property lapsed to the
British Government. It was held first, as it was held in
Buron v. Denman (2Ex. 167), that an act done by an agent
of the Government, though in excess of his authority, on
E being ratified and adopted by the Government, was of the ,.-
same authority as if it had originally been directed by the

-
Government, that the effect of the ratification is, in the
language of Parke B. In Buron v. Denman (Ibid. 188-9),
this, that it only leaves a remedy against the Crown (such as
it is), and exempts from all liability the person who com-
F mits. the trespass, and, second, that th~ seizure made by the ) _ •
· Bnllsh Government actmg as a sovereign power through its ~
delegate, the East India Company, was au act of State to
inquire into the propriety of which a municipal Court had
no jurisdiction. Lord Kingsdown, in delivering the judg-
ment of the Privy Council said (13 Moo. P.C. 77, 86);
G "Acts done in the execution of these sovereign powers
were not subject to the control of the municipal courts,
either of India or Great Britain."

In the same decision Lord Phillim0 re said at page 295 thus;

H "The defence set up in the present case is sometimes
B.K.MOHAPATRAv. STATEOFORJSSA(VENKATARAMIAH,J.] 659
\
called the defence of an act of State. As regards this way of A
looking at it, I cannot put the matter better or more tersely
than as I found it put in one of the reasons given by the
succegsful plaintiffs in their case as respondents before the
Privy Council, in Walker v. Baird, [189r A.C. 491, 494):
"Because between Her Majesty and one of her subjects
there can be no such thing as an act of State." And this B
proposition was finally accepted in the case of Walker v.
Baird, [1892- A.C. 491, 494)"

-
. £.
The High Court was, therefore, in error in upholding the plea
that the order dated 5. 1.1949 could not be questioned by the appellant
who had joined service after the commencement of the Constitution.
c
~ There is also no rational basis for refusing to give the benefit of
the service rendered by a teacher working in a 'B' type High School
after January 26, 1950 either for purposes of seniority or for purposes
of computing the retirement benefits. It may be open to the State
Government while integrating the services of teachers working in D
different kinds of institutions to introduce a scheme of rationalisation
which may have the effect of modifying the conditions of service of
different groups of Government servants. It cannot, however, by a
stroke of pen deny the benefit of the entire past service rendered by
one group of such Government servants. The effect of the Govern-
ment scheme was that while for purposes of inter se seniority amongst "E
the teachers of 'B' type High Schools, Ex-District Board High Schools

- and Ex-Anchal High Schools, that is, integrated High schools the
length of continuous service in their respective cadres in their old
schools was to be counted, for purposes of reckoning seniority vis-a-vis
teachers in Government schools their service was to be counted, only
from the date of conversion of those High Schools to Government F
Schools, i.e., from June 1, 1964. Consequently all teachers who had
been in Government Schools immediately· prior to June 1, 1964
became seniors to the teachers working in 'B' type High Schools,
Ex-District Board High Schools and Ex-Anchal High Schools. The
scheme put forward by the Government appears to us to be an irra-
tional one. We may at this stage mention that when this case was heard G
earlier by a bench of three learned Judges of this Court consisting of
V.R. Krishna Iyer, R.S. Pathak (as he then was) and 0. Chinnappa
~ Reddy, JJ. it was observed by the learned Judges on January 31, 1980
I
thus:

"We have been taken through the judgment of the High H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] I S.C.R.
/
Court and the relevant facts by Shri Sikri and we are satis-
A
fied that the reasons given by the High Court are far from r
satisfactory. On the other hand, no serious consideration of
the ground of discrimination in ignoring the past service of
the teachers has been given by the High Court."

B After making the above order the learned Judges granted time to
the State Government to evolve a fresh scheme for integration of the
services of the teachers in the schools referred in the scheme of 1964
with the teachers employed in the High Schools which were' Govern-
>-
ment Schools all along. It is reported to us that the Government was
not willing either to modify the existing scheme or to formulate a new
,..
scheme in a reasonable way. We respectfully agree with the above
c observations made by the three learned Judges. We are of the view
that the High Court was in error in upholding the terms of the scheme
insofar as the question of seniority was concerned. We are, therefore,
~
constrained to reverse the judgment of the High Court insofar as the
question relating to the validity of the terms of the scheme pertaining
D to the seniority of the teachers working in the schools referred to in it
is concerned. We hold that the clause in the scheme which reads: "But
for the purpose of reckoning their seniority in Government service,
their services will be counted from the date of conversion of the
schools into Government schools" is void. We direct the State
Government to treat on and after January 26, 1950 the service of the.
E teachers of 'B' type High Schools, Ex-District Board High Schools and y
Ex-Anchal High Schools as the service under the State Government. It

-
is open for the State Government to evolve a reasonable formula for
integrating the cadres of these teachers with the cadres of teachers in
High Schools which have been under the Government all along.
Befcire bringing about such integration, the Government may formu-
F late reasonable principles for equating the posts in the Government
High Schools with the posts in the 'B' type High Schools, Ex-District
Board High Schools and Ex-Anchal High Schools having regard to the ~r
minimum qualification for the posts, pay, responsibilities etc. In the
light of the said principles, the Government shall prepare a seniority
list. Thereafter it shall proceed to make promotions of teachers to
G higher cadres. We may at this stage state that the learned counsel for
the appellant and other teachers woking in 'B' type High Schools,
Ex-District Board High Schools and Ex-Anchal High Schools has sub-
mitted that these teachers do not insist upon promotions being given to
them with retrospective effect even if it is found that they are entitled ~
to it but they only pray that they may be promoted to the vacancies
H which may occur in the higher cadres hereafter. We express our
B.K. MOHAPATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 661

""!' appreciation of the stand taken by the learned counsel in this regard. A
The State Government shall, therefore, promote these teachers to
higher posts as and when vacancies arise hereafter on the basis of their
rank in the seniority list if they are found fit for such promotion. The
learned counsel has further submitted that if the State Government
finds it difficult to integrate the teachers belonging to 'B' type High B
Schools and teachers of other integrated schools with the teachers
.-4._. working in Government High Schools, the State Government may at
least consider the question of treating the two groups of teachers as
belonging to separate cadres and reserve certain percentage of posts
for being filled up only by the teachers of 'B' type High Schools,
Ex-District Board High Schools and Ex-Anchal High Schools as was
... the case in State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. C
---169. The Government is at liberty to do so if it finds it to be conve-
nient. The order of the High Court is, therefore, modified to the above
extent and the State Government shall prepare seniority list and make
...
promotions accordingly within six months from today in the light of
the above observations.
D
As regards the question of the Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme is concerned, we are informed that it has been satisfactorily
settled by the State Government. We, therefore, express no opinion
on that question.
' '--"!' ,
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. E

- S.L. Appeal disposed of