Cadre merger rules upheld despite reduced promotions, with limited relief granted on substantive appointment date and seniority.

A policy-based cadre merger under the Merger Rules, 2022 was upheld against constitutional challenge, with the Court holding that reduced promotional prospects alone did not establish arbitrariness or discrimination under Articles 14, 16 or 21. The rules were treated as a service-protective measure following the GST-driven repeal of the earlier tax regime, and they were found not to disrupt service continuity. The Court also granted limited corrective relief on seniority and substantive appointment, directing that the petitioners' status be reckoned from 21.07.2022 to avoid prejudice caused by promotions earned during the intervening period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Merger Rules, 2022 were ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India for creating a separate regime for employees of the erstwhile Entertainment Tax Department and placing them below the Commercial Tax Department employees in seniority. (ii) Whether the date of substantive appointment and consequent seniority for the merged employees could be fixed with reference to 21.07.2022 instead of 24.04.2018.

Issue (i): Whether the Merger Rules, 2022 were ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India for creating a separate regime for employees of the erstwhile Entertainment Tax Department and placing them below the Commercial Tax Department employees in seniority.

Analysis: The merger followed repeal of the Entertainment and Betting Tax statute on introduction of the GST regime, and the State treated the merger as a policy measure to protect the services of the affected employees. The Court held that policy decisions are not to be interfered with unless they are shown to be grossly arbitrary, irrational or unconstitutional. It further held that a mere reduction in promotional chances does not by itself establish a violation of Articles 14 or 16, and that the challenged merger rules did not nullify service continuity or disclose any unconstitutional discrimination.

Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of the Merger Rules, 2022 failed and the rules were held to be not ultra vires Articles 14, 16 and 21.

Issue (ii): Whether the date of substantive appointment and consequent seniority for the merged employees could be fixed with reference to 21.07.2022 instead of 24.04.2018.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the petitioners had continued to serve and had been promoted in the interregnum between the merger notification and the commencement of the Merger Rules, 2022. While the rules treated the merger date as the substantive appointment date, the Court modified the operative date for determining substantive appointment and status in the Commercial Tax Department to avoid prejudice to employees who had already secured promotions during the relevant period.

Conclusion: The substantive appointment and status of the petitioners were directed to be treated as on 21.07.2022 in the Commercial Tax Department on the promotional posts instead of 24.04.2018.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to the merger framework failed, but limited corrective relief was granted on the date from which the petitioners' substantive appointment and status are to be reckoned in the merged cadre.

Ratio Decidendi: A policy-based cadre merger will not be struck down merely because it affects promotional prospects, unless the classification or service arrangement is shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional; however, the Court may grant limited equitable relief to prevent prejudice where the merger rules operate retrospectively to the detriment of employees who have already advanced in service.

---