Back
High Court Of Delhi
H.L.RODHEY - Appellant
Versus
DELHI ADMINSTRATION - Respondent
Civil Writ 508 of 1968
Decided On : 08/14/1968
WRIT PETITIONS - Delhi Administration Subordinate Ministerial/executive Service Rules, 1967 (1967 Rules) - Constitution of two separate Central Civil Services - Subordinate Ministerial Service and Subordinate Executive Service - Petitioners, Ministerial employees, challenged the constitution of the services and their exclusion from the Subordinate Executive Service - HELD, the President could make rules for the central services functioning in the Union Territory of Delhi under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution - Petitioners' appointments were ad hoc and temporary and did not give them any right to hold the posts - Petitioners and respondents belonged to two separate classes and the absorption of the respondents in the Subordinate Executive Service and the absorption of the petitioners in the Subordinate Ministerial Service did not amount to discrimination against the petitioners contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Petitions dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Ministerial employees of the Delhi Administration, challenged the constitution of the two separate Central Civil Services, namely, the Subordinate Ministerial Service and the Subordinate Executive Service, by the Delhi Administration Subordinate Ministerial/executive Service Rules, 1967 (1967 Rules). The petitioners were excluded from the Subordinate Executive Service and absorbed in the Subordinate Ministerial Service. They contended that the President did not have the authority to make rules for the services functioning in the Union Territories, that their ad hoc appointments had become regular by virtue of their continuation beyond three months, that they were discriminated against as compared to the respondents who were absorbed in the Subordinate Executive Service, and that the 1967 Rules were retrospective in operation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the President could make rules for the central services functioning in the Union Territory of Delhi under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The Court further held that the petitioners' appointments were ad hoc and temporary and did not give them any right to hold the posts. The Court also held that the petitioners and respondents belonged to two separate classes and the absorption of the respondents in the Subordinate Executive Service and the absorption of the petitioners in the Subordinate Ministerial Service did not amount to discrimination against the petitioners contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Lastly, the Court held that the 1967 Rules were prospective and did not have any retrospective operation.
Issues: 1. Whether the President had the authority to make rules for the services functioning in the Union Territories? 2. Whether the petitioners' ad hoc appointments had become regular by virtue of their continuation beyond three months? 3. Whether the petitioners were discriminated against as compared to the respondents who were absorbed in the Subordinate Executive Service? 4. Whether the 1967 Rules were retrospective in operation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The President could make rules for the central services functioning in the Union Territory of Delhi under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. 2. Ad hoc appointments do not become regular merely by virtue of their continuation beyond three months. 3. The petitioners and respondents belonged to two separate classes and the absorption of the respondents in the Subordinate Executive Service and the absorption of the petitioners in the Subordinate Ministerial Service did not amount to discrimination against the petitioners contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 4. The 1967 Rules were prospective and did not have any retrospective operation.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed.
( 2 ) PRIOR to the promulgation of the 1967 Rules the Delhi Administration did not have a unified subordinate service or services. The Administration was divided into several departments, each of which had ministerial as well as executive posts under it. The appointments to the subordinate executive posts were Joverned by two notifications. The notification dated 8th August, 1960, at page 49 of the record of C. W. No. 508/1968 (hereinafter called the 1960 Rules), regulated appointments of Inspectors of Sales Tax, Excise Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Excise. Another notification dated 6th December 1962, at page 16 of the record of C. W. No. 543/1968 (hereinafter called the 1962 Rules) regulated the appointments to the Class III posts of Inspectors of minimum wages/ complaints Shop Inspectors and Labour Inspectors/labour Welfare Supervisors.
( 3 ) EXCEPT petitioners 1 and 2. viz. . Shri H. L. Rodhey and Shri Kishen Singh In C. W. No. 543/1968 all the other petittoners in all the three Writ Petitions were originally recruited to Ministerial posts as distinguished from executive posts. Petitioners 1 and 2, Rodney and Kishen Singh of C. W. 543/1968. were initially appointed to the posts of Labour Welfare Supervisor.
RODNEY was promoted to the post of Inspector of Shops and Establishments and confirmed in that post In 1965. He was promoted to officiate in the post ot complaint Inspector/minimum Wages Inspector when the 1967 Rules came into force. Kishen Singh was confirmed as Labour Welfare Supervisor and was promoted to the post of Inspector of Shops and Establishments in an officiating capacity and was further promoted to the post of Minimum Wages Inspector in an officiating capacity and was in that rust when the 1967 Rules came into force. Rodhey and Kishen Singh ought not to have joined as petitioners 1 and 2 along with the other petitioners 3 to 7 in C. W. 543/68. inasmuch as they being confirmed in the Executive posts were not absorbed in the Subordinate Ministerial Service on the promulgation of the 1967 Rules. The rest of the petitioners except Nos. 11 to 16 in C. W. 508/1968 in all the Writ Petitions had been recruited as Ministerial employees and were not appointed in a regular manner and were not confirmed in any executive posts. They were, therefore, absorbed in the Subordinate Ministerial Service, when the 1967 Rules came into force. In this background, let us see the individual facts regarding each of the petitioners in these three writ petitions.
( 4 ) C. W. 543 of 1968 : Petitioner No. 1, H. L. Rodhey, was appointed as temporary Labour Welfare Supervisor on 30-9-1953 as per annexure R-l to the return made by the Delhi Administration. He was provisionally appointed to work as Labour Inspector for three months and the rules were finalised by annexure R-2 dated 9-12-1959. He was promoted as Inspector of Shops on a purely temporary stop-gap basis without any right and benefit for the purposes of seniority and without any claim for regular appointment by annexure R-3 dated 24-12-1960. For the first time on the 18th March, 1961 on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the provisional promotion of Shri Rodhey to the post of Inspector of Shops was regularised. The word "regularised" apparently means that the appointment from the date of regularisation was regarded
AI
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
