SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. AND G.K. MITTER, J.
Debesh Chandra Das, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2065 of 1968, D/- 8-4-1969.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (M/s. B. P. Maheshwari, A. N. Parikh and S. M. Jain, Advocates, with him), for Appellant s Mr. D. Narasaraju, Senior Advocate (M/s. R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents (Nos. 1 and 2).
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 311 (2) - Civil Service - Post of Development Commissioner and Chief Secretary - Appeal against the judgment -Appellant is a member of Indian Civil Service - He qualified iand arrived in India in and was allotted - He came to Government of India and became in turn Under-Secretary and Deputy-Secretary Home Ministry - In he went back to Assam where he held post of Development Commissioner and Chief Secretary - In 1951 he again came to Government of India as Secretary, Public Service Commission - In he became Joint Secretary to Government of India and continued to hold that post till - From he was Managing Director of Central Warehousing Corporation - Appointments Committee of Cabinet approved proposal to continue him as Secretary, Department of Social Security - Whether under Centre or State but not to a lower post unless exigency of case so demanded – Held, Court say nothing about a genuine case of accident of service in which a person drafted from a State has to go back for any reason not connected with his work or conduct - This requires action in accordance with Article 311 (2) of Constitution and since none was taken, order of reversion cannot be sustained - Before Court leave this case Court are constrained to say that attitude in respect of this case was not very happy - Offered to take leave preparatory to retirement if he was retained in Delhi on this or other post - This coincided with his present tenure - But vast as Delhi Secretariat is, no job was found for him - This confirms Court in Court view of matter that he was being sent away not because of exigency of service but definitely because he was not required for reasons connected with his work and conduct - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. : This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant Debesh Chandra Das. This appeal is by certificate against the judgment dated September 18, 1968.
2. The appellant is a member of the Indian Civil Service. He qualified in 1933 and arrived in India in 1934 and was allotted to Assam. In 1940 he came to the Government of India and became in turn Under-Secretary and Deputy-Secretary Home Ministry. In 1947 he went back to Assam where he held the post of Development Commissioner and Chief Secretary. In 1951 he again came to the Government of India as Secretary, Public Service Commission. In 1955 he became Joint Secretary to the Government of India and continued to hold that post till 1961. From 1961 to 1964 he was Managing Director of Central Warehousing Corporation. On July 29, 1964, he was appointed Secretary Department of Social Security with effect from July 30, 1964 and until further orders. On March 6, 1965 the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet approved the proposal to continue him as Secretary, Department of Social Security. He continued in that Department, which is now renamed as the Department of Social Welfare. On June 20, 1968, he received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary which was to the following effect.
"My dear Debesh:
For sometime, the Government has been examining the question of building up a higher level of administrative efficiency. This is much more important in the context of the recent developments in the country. The future is also likely to be full of problems. In this connection, the Government examined the names of those who are at present occupying top level administrative posts with a view to ascertaining whether they were fully capable of meeting the new challenge or whether they should make room for younger people. As a result of this examination, it has been decided that you should be asked either to revert to your parent State or to proceed on leave preparatory to retirement or to accept some post lower than that of Secretary of Government. I would be glad if you would please let me know immediately as to what you propose to do so that further action in the matter may be taken.
* * * * *
Your sincerely,
(Sd.) DHARMA VIRA."
He asked for interview with the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister and represented his case but nothing seems to have come of it. On September 7, 1968 he received a second letter from the Cabinet Secretary which said inter alia as follows :
"..... I am now directed to inform you that after considering your oral and written representations in the matter Government has decided that your services may be placed at the disposal of your parent State, namely, Assam. In case, however, you like to proceed on leave preparatory to retirement, will you please let me know?........".
3. The appellant treated these orders as reduction in his rank and filed a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta on September 19, 1966. According to him the order amounted to a reduction in rank since the pay of a Secretary to the Government of India (I.C.S.) is Rs. 4,000 and the highest pay in Assam (I.C.S.) is Rs. 3,500. There being no equal post in the Government of Assam his reversion to the Assam Service meant a reduction not only in his emoluments but also in his rank. He also contended that he held a 5 years tenure post and the tenure was to end on July 29, 1969 but was wrongly terminated before the expiry of five years. He also alleged that there was a stigma attached to his reversion as was clear from the three alternatives which the letter of the Cabinet Secretary gave him. The highest post in the Government of Assam being equivalent to the Joint Secretary of Government of India, his reversion to the highest post i.e., Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, amounted to a reduction in rank. He contended, if this was the case, the procedure under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution ought to have
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.