1976 Supreme(SC) 279

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.
Union of India, Appellant
Versus
Agya Ram, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1779 of 1970,
17-8-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, Sr. Advocate (M/s. B. B. Sawhney and Raju Ramchandran, Advocates with her), for Appellant; Mr. S. K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga and Miss Yash Bagga, Advocates, for Respondent.

Headnote:

Punjab Civil Service Rules - Rule 5.32 (c) - Appointment as Assistant Settlement Officer – Employment and service – Claim of compensation - Whether respondent a permanent employee of the Punjab Government who held a temporary appointment as Settlement Officer in the office of Regional Settlement Officer under Ministry of Works Housing and Supply - Whether under Rule 5.32 (c) of Punjab Civil Service Rules Government could retire an employee on or after he attained age of fifty-five years by giving him 3 months’ salary in lieu of three months notice - Whether in circumstance of case reverting the respondent to parent department amounted to termination of his services because we have not been able to find any basis for the claim that prior notice of fifteen days was required before respondent could be reverted from his temporary post as Settlement Officer to the Directorate of Land Records - Respondent worked as Assistant Settlement Officer till May when he was appointed a Settlement Officer, again in a temporary capacity - Respondent took over as Settlement Officer on May – By a letter dated December Settlement Commissioner, Department of Rehabilitation in Ministry of Works Housing and Rehabilitation of the Government of India informed the Director of Land Records Punjab Government, Jullundur that - It has been decided to replace the service a permanent Assistant of your Directorate and working as Settlement Officer in the Office of Regional Settlement Commissioner on deputation at your disposal with immediate effect and requested him to issue posting orders immediately - This letter was followed by an office order made on January by Regional Settlement Officer asking the respondent to hand over charge of his office and report for duty to Director of Land Records Punjab Jullundur immediately - A copy of this order was served on the respondent - Respondent however did not report for duty but sent in his resignation to Punjab Government stating that his circumstances did not permit him to continue in Government service any longer – Held, It is clear even from evidence of respondent himself that he was on deputation in the Ministry of Rehabilitation Government of India though he sought to deny this fact - He admitted that he was a permanent employee of Punjab Government in substantive rank of Superintendent and that he had lien in the Punjab State Rehabilitation Department even when he was working as Settlement Officer in the Central Rehabilitation Department - This shows that there was no basis for the view taken by the trial court Both the first appellate court and the High Court thought that fifteen days prior notice was necessary before the order of reversion was made though they differed on consequences of non-service of notice - High Court relied on its earlier decision in the case where the question was whether under Rule 5.32 (c) of Punjab Civil Service Rules Government could retire an employee on or after he attained the age of fifty five years by giving him three months’ salary in lieu of three months notice - It appears that the decision relied on was by a single Judge who held that failure to give notice could not be cured by giving the employee his salary for the period - Question was ultimately referred to a Full Bench and Full Bench of the High Court took a contrary view - Case came up to this and this Court agreeing with the Full Bench held that the validity of the order retiring the Government servant was not affected if instead of notice a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for period of notice was paid to him - Court do not think it necessary to consider the second question as to whether in the circumstance of the case reverting the respondent to parent department amounted to termination of his services because we have not been able to find any basis for the claim that prior notice of fifteen days was required before respondent could be reverted from his temporary post as Settlement Officer to the Directorate of Land Records - Terms of service on which the courts including High Court proceeded were applicable to the respondent as Assistant Settlement Officer - No such term appears from the order appointing the respondent as Settlement Officer nor there is anything on record to suggest that same terms and conditions which regulated services of the respondent as Assistant Settlement Officer would continue to apply to him as Settlement Officer - Reference to that term in this case in court opinion was misconceived - Appeal allowed