SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.R. KHANNA, P.N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZL ALI, JJ.
T. R. Sharma, Appellant
Versus
Prithvi Singh and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 354 and 355 of 1971
Decided on 17-11-1975.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. N. Phadke, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. P. C. Bhartari and K. K. John, Advocates with him), for Appellant (in both the Appeals); M/s. S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja, M. Qamaruddin, and P. N. Puri, Advocates, (for No.1) in Civil Appeal No. 354 of 1971 and (for Nos. 1 and 2) In Civil Appeal No. 355 of 1971, for Respondents.
Punjab Civil Services Rules - Rule 7 - Haryana Agricultural Service Class II Rules, 1947 - Civil Appeals - Praying quashing of order - Appellant joined service as Agricultural Inspector in Agricultural Development of Punjab Government - Joined as Agricultural Inspectors in the said Agricultural Department on different dates - Appellant was confirmed as Agricultural Inspector - Appellant was appointed against a temporary post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the Development Department of the State - By order appellant was made substantive permanent Block Development and Panchayat Officer with effect - As a result of partition of Punjab the appellant as well as were allocated to the State of Haryana - Governor of Haryana passed an order deconfirming the appellant on his request from the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer with effect – Held, suspended lien of the Government servant concerned may not, except on the written request of that Government servant, be terminated while he remains in Government service- Note to rule 3.15 shows a way out in case any difficulty is experienced on account of the operation of rule 3.14 (a) (2). It is nobody s case that any written request was made by the appellant for terminating his suspended lien on the post of Agricultural Inspector. As such court find it difficult to uphold the finding of the majority of the learned Judges that lien of the appellant on post of Agricultural Inspector had stood terminated. In our opinion, the third Judge who was in the majority took a correct view of the matter when he observed that the Government servant is not to be penalised and cannot be deprived of safeguards provided by Rule 3.14 because of fact that competent authority had not taken the necessary steps - Governor has deconfirmed appellant from post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, suspended lien of the appellant on post of Agricultural Inspector would stand revived with effect - Promotion of the appellant in the parent Agricultural Department from post of Agricultural Inspector to that of District Agricultural Officer by impugned order cannot in the circumstances be held to suffer from any legal infirmity - Two appeals, set aside judgments of learned single Judge and the Full Bench and dismiss the writ petitions filed respondents - Parties in circumstances shall bear their own costs throughout - Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
KHANNA, J.:— This judgment would dispose of two Civil Appeals Nos. 354 and 355 of 1971 which have been filed on certificate by Tuhi Ram Sharma appellant against the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
2. The appellant joined service as Agricultural Inspector in the Agricultural Development of Punjab Government in 1945. Teja Singh, Bhale Ram and Prithvi Singh joined as Agricultural Inspectors in the said Agricultural Department on different dates between 1950 and 1958. The appellant was confirmed as Agricultural Inspector in 1959. On May 20, 1961 the appellant was appointed against a temporary post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the Development Department of the State. By order dated October 28, 1966 the appellant was made substantive permanent Block Development and Panchayat Officer with effect from April 1, 1964. As a result of partition of Punjab the appellant as well as the Teja Singh, Bhale Ram and Prithvi Singh were allocated to the State of Haryana. On February 26, 1969 the Governor of Haryana passed an order deconfirming the appellant on his request from the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer 368 with effect from that date. On March 20, 1969 the Governor of Haryana passed the impugned order which reads as under :
"The Governor of Haryana is pleased to promote temporarily Shri Tuhi Ram Sharma, Agricultural Inspector, now working as Block Development and Panchayat Officer as District Agricultural Officer in H. A. S. Class II subject to the approval of the Haryana Public Service Commission and to post him at Rohtak in place of Shri Narain Singh who is transferred to Narnaul as District Agricultural Officer, Shri Prithvi Singh who is working against the post of District Agricultural Officer, Narnaul is reverted to the post of Agricultural Inspector being the junior-most.
The character roll file of Shri Tuhi Ram in two parts is sent herewith. Its receipt may please be acknowledged."
Two writ petitions were filed praying the quashing of the above order. One petition was filed by Prithvi Singh respondent and the other was filed by Bhale Ram and Teja Singh respondents. Learned Single Judge (Tuli J.) as per judgment dated January 30, 1970 allowed both the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order on the following two grounds :
"(i) the impugned promotion had been made in violation of the mandatory requirements of Rule 7 of the Haryana Agricultural Service Class II Rules, 1947 (hereinafter called the 1947 rules) which required appointment being made to the service by promotion by selection on the advice of Haryana Public Service Commission inasmuch as Sharma had been promoted without obtaining the advice of the Commission which had to be taken before the selection for promotion was made and not after having promoted Sharma; and
(ii) in view of the binding earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Labhu Ram v. State of Punjab, 1968 SLR 319 (Punj) it was held that Sharma had on his confirmation as Block Development and Panchayat Officer on October 28, 1966 (with effect from April 1, 1964, vide Annexure A) in the Development Department of the Haryana State, ceased to be a member of the Haryana Agricultural Service from which post alone he could have been promoted to the post in question, and his lien on the post of Agricultural Inspector automatically stood terminated under Rule 3.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I, Part I."
It was also observed by learned single Judge that but for the earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Labhu Ram v. State of Punjab, he would have been inclined to hold in favour of Sharma appellant on the second point mentioned above. Four Letters Patent appeals were filed against the judgment of the single Judge. Two of those appeals were by Sharma appellant, while the other two were filed by the State of Haryana. When the appeals came up for hearing before the Division Bench, the learned Judges referred the matter to the Full Ben
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.