SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(SC) 109

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI, A.C. GUPTA AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
The Vice-Chancellor, Jammu University, and another, Appellants
Versus
Dushinant Kumar Rampal, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1739 of 1973,
D/- 23-2-1977.
Advocates appeared
Mr. F.S. Nariman, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. O.C. Mathur, P.N. Tiwari & D.N. Mishra, Advocates with him), for Appellants; Respondent in Person.

Advocates:
D.M.MISRA, DUSHIANT RAMPAL, F.S.NARIMAN, O.C.MATHUR, P.N.TIVARI

Headnote:GROUND NOT TAKEN IN APPEAL - ORDER MADE PURPORTEDLY UNDER WRONG PROVISION OF LAW - ON SUSPENSION RELATION OF MASTER AND SERVANT IS ALSO TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED—NO PAYMENT CAN BE CLAIMED THEN

       -held, such ground cannot be entertained in appeal by special leave before Supreme Court.

       -held, order by itself may not fail if it was otherwise within competence and can be shown within its power under other provision.

       -see decision in Jammu University v. D.K. Rampal, AIR 1977 SC 1146=1977 Sew L.C. 286.

       -held, on suspension of an employee by the employer either by terms of contract or rules governing terms and conditions of service the relationship of master and servant is temporarily suspended as an effect of the suspension. The employee is therefore normally not entitled to pay during this period. He may be paid subsistence allowance if rules provide for it.

Judgment

BHAGWATI, J.:- We pronounced our order on this appeal on 17th December, 1976 and we now proceed to give our reasons. We may point out that the respondent was not represented by a lawyer and he argued his case in person and though he is a lay man, not well versed in the science of law and in the art and skill of advocacy, we must admit that he argued his case with conspicuous ability.

2. Prior to 5th September, 1969 there was only one University for the entire territory of the State of Jammu & Kashmir namely, the University of Jammu & Kashmir. It was constituted under the Jammu & Kashmir University Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1965) and, as provided in Section 20, its central authorities included the Senate and the Central Council. The Central Council was the executive body of the University and it had the power inter alia to appoint teachers and to define their duties. The respondent was appointed as a lecturer in English by the Central Council on 25-4-1966 and after his period of probation was over he was confirmed as lecturer with effect from 29th April, 1967. The conditions of service of the respondent like those of other confirmed teachers, were regulated by the Statutes made by the Senate from time to time under the provisions of the Act of 1965. Statute 2 provided that every salaried teacher of the University shall have to execute a written contract with the University and the conditions of service of teachers appointed by the University shall be those embodied in the agreement of service annexed to the Statutes and every teacher shall execute such agreement before he enters upon his duties or as soon as possible thereafter. It appears that though Statute 2 required an agreement of service to be executed by a teacher, no such agreement of service was executed by the respondent on his appointment as lecturer. But it was common ground between the parties that the conditions of service of the respondent were governed by the provisions set out in the form of agreement of service annexed to the Statutes. Clause (6) of this agreement - and this clause admittedly governed the respondent - stipulated that in all matters, the teacher would "abide by the Statutes and Regulations from time to time in force in the University, and in particular, by those determining his/her grade, increment, conditions of service, rules of superannuation and provident fund rules, provided that no change in the Statutes and Regulations in this regard shall be deemed to have adversely affected the teacher." The respondent was thus clearly bound by any changes which might be made in the Statutes from time to time and no change made in the Statute was to be regarded as having adversely affected the respondent and he could not complain against it. The case of the respondent was that he satisfactorily carried on his duties as lecturer and earned his increments from year to year.

3. On 5th September, 1969 the Governor of Jammu & Kashmir promulgated Ordinance No. 10 of 1969 establishing in place of the University of Jammu & Kashmir, two separate universities, namely, the University of Kashmir for the Kashmir division and the University of Jammu for the Jammu division of the State. This Ordinancee was replaced by the Jammu & Kashmir Universities Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1969) which came into force on 30th October, 1969. The Act of 1969 made a slight departure from the earlier Act in the constitution of the various authorities of each University. Section 20 of the Act of 1969 provided that the authorities of each university shall include the University Council and the Syndicate. The University Council was constituted supreme authority of the university while the Syndicate was entrusted with the chief executive authority. Whereas under the earlier Act, the power to appoint all teachers of the University was entrusted to the Central Council there was bifurcation of this power between the University Council and th



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top