- (1.) In the field of mines and minerals, the government of India has two departments: (i) Exploration Wing of the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) and (ii) Geological Survey of India (GSI). The GSI is responsible for geological mapping and exploratory drilling calculated to delineate mineralised zones in the country. The IBM conducts detailed probing operations in selected blocks of mineralised areas. The functions of these two departments were found to be overlapping. The government of India, therefore, decided to merge the Exploratory Wing of IBM with the GSI to eliminate overlapping works and rationalise the functions of the two departments. To accomplish this purpose, different cadres of the Exploration Wing of IBM were merged with the GSI from different dates. There is no dispute that the posts concerned in these cases also came to be merged with the GSI. The question, however, for consideration is about the date of that merger; whether it was from 1/01/1966 or from any subsequent a date. The government of India contends that the merger took place on 4/02/1969 while the contesting respondents claim that it was with effect from 1/01/1966.
(2.) The dispute as to the date of merger has arisen because of the following circumstances. That between the period from 1/01/196 6/02/1969, 39 persons in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks belonging to GSI were promoted as Upper Division Clerks against the vacancies that arose in the GSI. They were apparently juniors to their counterparts in the IBM. Being aggrieved by the said promotions, theassociation of the officers who originally belonged to the IBM preferred Special Civil Application No. 985 of 1969 at Nagpur bench of the Bombay High court for setting aside the seniority list and for a direction to consider their cases of promotion with effect from January 1, 1966. It was contended before the High court that the merger of the two departmente took place with effect from 1/01/1966 and not from 4/02/1969 and therefore, there cannot be two separate channels of promotions from 1/01/1966 one for the employees of the Exploration Wing of IBM and another for the employees of GSI. The government of India sought to justify the promotions exclusively given to the officers of GSI between the period from 1/01/196 6/02/1969 on the ground that the actual merger took place not on 1/01/1966 but on 4/02/1969. The High court, however, did not accept the submission of the government of India. The High court summarised its conclusion thus: "It is also to be noted that after 1/01/1966 the petitioners did not get any promotion or were not considered for promotion by the Indian Bureau of Mines because they were treated under the administrative control of Geological Survey of India. If the contention of the respondents is accepted then it will have to be held that for three years the cases of the petitioners cannot be considered by the Geological Survey of India and they were not considered by the Indian Bureau of Mines because they were not under the administrative control of Indian Bureau of Mines. This will result into absurdity and, therefore, such a contention cannot be accepted. We are, therefore, inclined to hold on consideration of the annexures produced along with this petition that the merger in the two wings has taken place on 1/01/1966. Therefore, the seniority of Upper Division Clerks will have to be considered and made in this light after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners merged and became the part of Geological Survey of India on 1/01/1966 and, therefore, for the purpose of counting their seniority, their past service rendered with the Indian Bureau of Mines will have to be treated as service rendered with the Geological Survey of India. This is the correct effect of the letter R-2 relied upon by the respondents. We, therefore, direct respondents 1,2 and 4 to prepare a fresh seniority list in the light of the observations made above as if the merger has taken place on 1/01/1966 and after determining inter se seniority give an appropriate relief to the petitioners. "
(3.) Civil no. 855 (N) of 1979 has been preferred against the above decision of the Bombay High court.;