Service reversion and territorial reorganisation: administrative orders continue in successor States until modified, and communication occurs when issued.

The discussion explains that officiating or temporary engineers could not claim protection under the repealed 1942 service rules where appointment, probation and cadre status did not establish a statutory right to confirmation, so reversion was treated as administrative rather than punitive and Article 311(2) was not attracted. It also states that, on territorial reorganisation, administrative orders of the former State continued to operate in successor States until lawfully modified or repudiated, and an order was communicated once it left the issuing authority's control. On that reasoning, the reversion orders were effective before the appointed day and were treated as valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents were governed by the Punjab Service of Engineers, Buildings and Roads Branch (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1942, and whether their reversion was invalid for want of compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the impugned reversion orders lost efficacy because they were communicated after the appointed day under the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents were governed by the Punjab Service of Engineers, Buildings and Roads Branch (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1942, and whether their reversion was invalid for want of compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The respondents were officiating Sub-Divisional Officers or, in one case, a temporary Assistant Engineer. On a comparative reading of the 1942 Rules, the 1960 Rules and the 1965 Class II Rules, the respondents did not fall within the cadre protected by the 1942 Rules. Some had been appointed after repeal of those Rules, some had not completed the requisite probation, and the remaining cases did not establish any statutory foundation for claiming confirmation under the repealed regime. Their reversion was also not punitive in character, but followed the service rules governing absorption into the appropriate Class II service and the assessment of suitability by the Public Service Commission.

Conclusion: The respondents could not invoke the 1942 Rules, and the reversion did not attract Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The finding was against the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned reversion orders lost efficacy because they were communicated after the appointed day under the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966.

Analysis: Section 2(g) defined "law" for the purposes of Section 88, and the impugned administrative orders were not "law" within that definition. Nevertheless, on territorial reorganisation without change of sovereignty, administrative orders of the erstwhile State continued to operate in the successor States until modified, changed or repudiated by the competent authority. The Court also held that an order is communicated when it goes out of the control of the issuing authority, and not only when actually received by the employee. On the facts, the orders had been sent out before 1 November 1966 and thus had taken effect before the appointed day. Section 83 therefore applied to treat the respondents as holding the reverted posts on the appointed day.

Conclusion: The orders were not still-born or inoperative, and they remained effective before the appointed day. The finding was against the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders of reversion were held valid, and the appeals succeeded substantially, subject only to the direction that no refund of salaries already paid should be claimed from the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: In a mere territorial reorganisation of a State, administrative orders of the former State continue to bind the successor States until lawfully modified or repudiated, and an order is communicated once it is issued and sent out of the issuing authority's control.

---