Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Onkareshwar Bhatt, J.
VED PRAKASH CHADDHA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (FINANCE), NEW DELHI - Respondents
Second Appeal 2924 Of 1983
Decided On : 05/15/1999
CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS - ARTICLE 418 - INTERPRETATION - RESIGNATION OF APPOINTMENT TO TAKE UP ANOTHER APPOINTMENT WITH PROPER PERMISSION - PROPER PERMISSION CONSTRUED - APPLICATION RECOMMENDED AND FORWARDED BY AUTHORITIES - IMPLICIT PERMISSION - BENEFIT OF PAST SERVICE - ENTITLED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a civilian school teacher, served in various military establishments from 1950 to 1954. He claimed that his service should be counted for the purposes of pension, seniority, gratuity, confirmation, promotion, earned leave, fixation of pay, and entry in the service book. The respondent denied the claim, arguing that the appellant had resigned from his service and forfeited his past services under Article 418(a) of the Civil Service Regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Article 418(b) of the Civil Service Regulations applied to the appellant's case. The court interpreted "proper permission" in Article 418(b) to mean implicit permission, which was granted when the appellant's application for a new post was recommended and forwarded by the authorities under which he was serving. The court found that the appellant had not resigned from his service and was entitled to the benefit of his past service.
Issues: 1. Whether Article 418(b) of the Civil Service Regulations applied to the appellant's case. 2. Whether the appellant had obtained "proper permission" to resign from his previous post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Article 418(b) of the Civil Service Regulations applied to the appellant's case because he had resigned from his previous post to take up another appointment with proper permission. The court interpreted "proper permission" to mean implicit permission, which was granted when the appellant's application for a new post was recommended and forwarded by the authorities under which he was serving. The court found that the appellant had not resigned from his service and was entitled to the benefit of his past service.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the decree and judgment of the appellate court were set aside. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed for the reliefs claimed, with costs throughout.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. D. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant. Neither any one is present on behalf of the respondent nor any counter-affidavit has been filed though the sole respondent has been personally served on 21. 2. 1997 and an affidavit of service to that effect is filed by the appellant.
( 2 ) THE present second appeal arises out of decree and Judgment dated 1. 8. 1983 passed by VIth additional District Judge, Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1977 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The first appeal was directed against the decree and Judgment dated 10. 11. 1976 passed in Original Suit No. 11 of 1974, Ved Prakash v. Union of India, by VIIth Additional munsif, Meerut, whereby the plaintiffs suit has been dismissed.
( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant has served as a Civilian School teacher from 21. 8. 1950 to 5. 2. 1953 in Sikh Regimental Centre, Meerut. from 6. 2. 1953 to 6. 1. 1954 in Army Supply Corps Centre, North, Meerut and from 7. 1. 1954 to 7. 6. 1954 in Punjab regimental Centre, Meerut Cantt. and since 8. 6. 1954 he was serving in C. D. A. Department. It has been pleaded that the service of the plaintiff appellant is/are governed by Civil Service regulations, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation ). It has been pleaded that according to article 418 (b) of the Regulation, the plaintiff is entitled to count the service from 21. 8. 1950 to 7. 6. 1954 for the purposes of :
(i) Benefits of pension, seniority, gratuity, confirmation and promotion etc. (ii) For carrying of earned leave on the plaintiffs credit during the abovesaid period. (iii) For fixation of pay. (iv) For the entry of the above said period in service-book as the period spent on duty.
( 4 ) IT has been pleaded that the above period of service has been granted to the plaintiff for fixation of his pay and allowances in the service of C. D. A. Western Command, but the plaintiff has been denied the arrears of difference of pay due to him as a result of reflxation of pay prior to issue of the order dated 31. 8. 1970 by C. D. A. Western Command.
( 5 ) IN the written statement, the respondent has pleaded that the appellant had resigned from his service in Punjab Regimental Centre, Meerut Cantt on his own accord. He has forfeited his entire past services by virtue of Article 418 (a) of the Regulation ; that benefit of previous service was allowed to the appellant for the purposes of fixation of his pay as a special case and that the appellant has no legal right to get the benefit of his previous service counted for pension and gratuity, etc. and to get difference of pay and allowances and interim relief.
( 6 ) THE Courts below have dismissed the appeal and the suit of the plaintiff on the interpretation of Article 418. In the memorandum of appeal, three substantial questions of law have been formulated, which. are as under :
(i) Whether the Courts below have committed substantial illegality in completely misinterpreting Article 418 of the Civil Service Regulations?
(ii) Whether the Courts betow have committed substantial illegality in not considering the article 418 in conjunction with other relevant articles which fully establish that the appellant had joined his new department with the permission of his earlier department?
(iii) Whether gross misinterpretation of beneficial legislation like the Article 418 of the Civil service Regulations results in substantial illegality?
( 7 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below gave erroneous conclusion on Article 418 of the Regulation and as such the second appeal raises substantial questions of law.
( 8 ) ARTICLE 418 of the Regulation runs as follows :
"418 (a) Resignation of public service, or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, in efficiency, not due to age. or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service.
(b) Resignation of an appointment to take up,
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
