Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
R.N.A. Britto, Appellant
Versus
Chief Executive Officer and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 718 of 1993
Decided on 1-5-1995.
Constitution Of India,1950 – Article, 311 - Tribunals Act - Section 15 - Appointment in civil service of State - Jurisdiction to decide upon the matter - Karnataka State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957 - Appellant being Secretary established Act serving in connection with affairs of local authority was State Government servant and hence Tribunal had jurisdiction clause of sub section Tribunals Act to decide upon matter relating to termination of his service as Secretary of - On contrary it was contended for State and other respondents that appellant who was Secretary established Act was not State Government servant and hence Tribunal was justified in rejecting appellants application on its view that it had no jurisdiction to decide upon matter of termination of his service as Secretary of Bajer established Act – Held, Provisions in which court have adverted clearly show that several functions which courted required to be performed by State are entrusted to - They also show that properties vested in and funds are that of Government and those collected by way of tax or fee by exercising courts of taxation vested in by Government - Above all provisions of Act make it abundantly clear that have to function under ultimate control of State Government - When it comes to Secretaries appointed Act their selection for appointment their termination from service their liability for transfer and all other conditions of their services are as provided for under Rules made Act or other rules made Article Constitution in respect of services of State Government servants - When sub section Act to which court have adverted states that subject to provisions of Rules made proviso of Article 309 of Constitution qualifications courts duties remuneration and conditions of service including disciplinary matters of such Secretary shall be such as may be prescribed it leaves no room for doubt that Secretaries are Government servants like other Government servants who are subjected to Rules to be made under proviso to Article Constitution as regards their service conditions - Thus provisions Act and Rules to which court have adverted to leave no option for us except to hold that Secretaries Act are State Government servants - If that be so they are persons who are appointed in civil service of State or civil post State within meaning clause of sub section of Tribunals Act as would enable them to invoke jurisdiction of Tribunal for red resale of their grievances in relation to any service matter concerning them - Hence Tribunal court hold fell into patent error in rejecting review application appellant filed before it on ground that it had no jurisdiction to deal with matter relating to termination of his service as Panchayat Secretary - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
VENKATACHALA, J.:—R.N.A. Britto, the appellant had been appointed as the Secretary of the Bajpe Pachyat, established under the provisions of the Karnataka Village and Local Boards Act, 1959 - "the Act". The Chief Executive Officer of Mangalore Taluk Development Board, Respondent 1 issued a Memo dated November 4, 1986 to the appellant stating therein that his service as Secretary of the Bajpe Panchayat, had stood terminated. The appellant challenged the said termination of his service as Secretary of the Bajpe Panchayat, by an application made before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal - "the Tribunal", established under the provisions of the Adminstrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - "the Tribunals Act". But, by its Order dated September 20, 1988 the Tribunal rejected the application on the gound that it had no jurisdiction to decide upon the matter. However, the appellant made an application before the Tribunal seeking review of its earlier order. That review application of the appellant was also rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated January 22, 1992, reiterating its earlier view that it had no jurisdiction to decide on the matter of termination of the appellants service as Secretary of Panchayat, in that, he was not in the civil service of the State or in a civil post under the State which would have given it the jurisdiction to decide upon the matter under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Tribunals Act. It is the said order of the Tribunal which has been impugned by the appellant in this appeal by special leave.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant being a Secretary of a Panchayat established under the Act serving in connection with the affairs of the local authority was a State Government servant and hence the Tibunal had jurisdiction under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Tibunals Act to decide upon the matter relating to termination of his service as Secretary of the Panchayat. On the contrary, it was contended for the State and other respondents, that the appellant who was the Secretary of a Panchayat established under the Act was not a State Government servant and hence the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellants application on its view that it had no jurisdiction to decide upon the matter of termination of his service as Secreatery of Bajpe Panchayat established under the Act.
3. If regard is had to the above rival contentions urged in this appeal, the short question which needs our consideration in deciding the appeal would be the following:
Is a Secretary of a panchahayat established under the act, a state government servant entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the tribunal to decide upon the matter of termination of his service under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Tribunals Act?
4. All matters of a person appointed to any civil service of a State on any post under the State pertaining to his service in connection with the affairs of the State or of any local or other authority under the control of the State Government or of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the State Government are matters with respect to which the Tribunal could exercise its jurisdiction under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Tribunals Act, is not in dispute. The appellant was a Secretary of a Panchayat established under the Act and as such Secretary was serving in connection with the affairs of the Panchayat, a local authority under the control of the State Government, is also not in dispute. For, such a Secretary to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Tribunals Act for redressal of his grievance pertaining to his service in connection with the affairs of a Panchayat under the control of the State Government, must have been in the civil service of the State or in a civil post under the State, is again not in dispute. Therefore, the short question
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
