1. Employee entrusted with current duty charge of a higher post in own pay scale — withdrawal of charge and transfer — challenge under Article 226. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 420
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.
State of Haryana, Appellant
Versus
S. M. Sharma and others, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1952 of 1993 (arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 15780 of 1992)
Decided on 20-4-1993.
Important Points
No employee has a legal right to hold or demand a 'current duty charge.' Since such a charge is not a promotion or appointment, the authority that entrusted it is competent to withdraw it, and such withdrawal does not provide a cause of action to invoke writ jurisdiction.
Subject
Administrative Law - Delegation of Powers
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.221
HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD SERVICE RULES: R.13
PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS ACT: S.3(1)(7)(ii), S.20
PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS GENERAL RULES: R.4(6)
HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD SERVICE RULES: R.13
PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS ACT: S.3(1)(7)(ii), S.20
PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS GENERAL RULES: R.4(6)
Headnote
Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 - Section 3(17)(ii) - General Rules- Rule 4(2) - Punjab Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1961 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Constitution and functioning of the Board is governed by the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (the Act) as applicable to the State of Haryana and by Rules framed thereunder. Section 3(17)(ii) of the Act empowers Board to delegate any of its powers to its Chairman Chief Administrator Secretary or any of its officers - Held, It is only a posting order in respect of two officers - With the posting of as Executive Engineer Sharma was automatically relieved of the current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer - Neither appointed/promoted/posted as Executive Engineer nor was he ever reverted from the said post - He was only holding current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer - Chief Administrator never promoted Sharma to post of Executive Engineer and as such the question of his reversion from the said post did not arise - Under the circumstances the controversy whether the powers of Board to appoint/promote a person to the post of an Executive Engineer were delegated to Chairman or to the Chief Administrator is wholly irrelevant - Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
APARNA ROHATGI, G.L.SANGHI, K.B.ROHTAGI, M.K.PURI, M.R.SHARMA, P.N.PURI, V.C.MAHAJAN, V.K.Sharma
APARNA ROHATGI, G.L.SANGHI, K.B.ROHTAGI, M.K.PURI, M.R.SHARMA, P.N.PURI, V.C.MAHAJAN, V.K.Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Whether the authority withdrawing the current duty charge possessed the requisite power following the delegation of appointment and removal powers to a different authority. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Current duty charge in own pay scale is not a promotion; withdrawal of such charge is a posting matter and does not constitute removal or reversion. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. No legal right exists to claim or retain a current duty charge; its withdrawal without prejudice or financial loss does not justify invoking writ jurisdiction. (Para 11 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — writ petition dismissed with costs. (Para 12 )
6. What is the legal distinction between a promotion and the entrustment of a current duty charge?
Entrusting an employee with the current duty charge of a post in their own pay scale is not a promotion. Because no promotion occurred, the subsequent withdrawal of that charge does not constitute a reversion or removal from the post. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. Does an employee have a legally enforceable right to retain a current duty charge?
No, the court held that no one has a legal right to ask for or stick to a current duty charge. (Para 11 )
8. When does the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 regarding duty charges constitute a misuse of the process of the court?
Invoking writ jurisdiction is a misuse of process when the challenge is based on a frivolity, such as the withdrawal of a current duty charge that causes no financial loss or prejudice to the employee. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT
KULDIP SINGH,J. :—Special leave granted.
2. S. M. Sharma is employed as Sub Divisional Officer in the service of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (the Board). The Chief Administrator of the Board by the order dated June 13, 1991 entrusted Sharma with the current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer. Later on by the order dated January 6, 1992 the Chief Administrator withdrew the said current duty charge from Sharma and transferred him to Bhiwani. Sharma challenged the order before the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court by its judgment dated August 20, 1992 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated January 6, 1992. This appeal by the State of Haryana is against the judgment of the High Court.
3. The constitution and the functioning of the Board is governed by the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (the Act) as applicable to the State of Haryana and by the Rules framed thereunder. Section 3(17)(ii) of the Act empowers the Board to delegate any of its powers to its Chairman, Chief Administrator, Secretary or any of its officers. The Punjab Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1961 (the General Rules) and the HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD SERVICE RULES , 1974 (the Service Rules) have been framed under the Act. Rule 4(2) of the General Rules which lays down the functions and powers of the Chief Administrator is as under :
"4(2) The Chief Administrator shall,
(a) be responsible for the administration of the Act and shall subject to any other provision contained in these rules, exercise general control over the employees of the Board and those of Committees;
(b) enjoy the powers of the Head of the Department as are being enjoyed by the Director of Agricultural Department;
(c) be the competent authority for approving the budget of the Committees; and
(d) be responsible for the preparation of the annual budget of the Board."
4. Rule 13 of the Service Rules which is relevant is reproduced hereunder:
13. A member of the Service shall be liable to serve in any place, whether within or without the State of Haryana, on being ordered so to do by the Chief Administrator."
Section 20 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the General Rules gives the power of appointment to the post of Executive Engineer to the Board. It is not disputed that the Board by its resolution dated November 18, 1986 delegated its powers, to appoint Class A Officers, including the Executive Engineers, and to inflict major punishment in respect of such officers, to the Chief Administrator of the Board. Thereafter the Board by its resolution dated December 26, 1991 superseded the earlier resolution dated November 18, 1986 and further resolved to delegate the said powers to its Chairman. The appellant, State Government, claims that the resolution dated December 26, 199 1, having been passed in the absence of the Chief Administrator, was not valid. We do not wish to go into the question ,of the validity of the said resolution. The High Court proceeded on the assumption that the resolution dated December 26, 1991 was valid and as such the Chief Administrator was left with no power to appoint a person to the post of Executive Engineer and to remove him therefrom.
On the above facts the High Court reached the following findings:
(i) Under the Act and the Service Rules it is the Board which is competent to make an appointment to the post of Executive Engineer.
(ii) The delegation of powers in favour of the Chief Administrator was withdrawn by the Board by its resolution dated December 26, 1991 and instead the said powers were delegated to the Chairman. It was, thus, only the Chairman who could appoint a person to the post of Executive Engineer and also to remove him therefrom.
(iii) After the above said resolution dated December 26, 1991 the Chief Administrator was no longer competent to exercise the powers with regard to appointment, removal etc. in respec
