Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. U. Beg, J.
HARCHARAN LAL - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SUGARCANE RESEARCH - Respondents
Writ Petn. 255 Of 1962
Decided On : 01/17/1964
TERMINATION OF SERVICES - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (TEMPORARY SERVICES) RULES, 1949 - RULE 6 - REDUCTION OF POSTS - TERMINATION OF SERVICES OF QUASI-PERMANENT GOVERNMENT SERVANT - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - REDUCTION CERTIFICATE - LIST UNDER RULE 7 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tractor driver appointed in a quasi-permanent capacity, challenged the order terminating his services under Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1949 (the Rules). The petitioner argued that the order was invalid as it did not comply with the conditions laid down in the Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order terminating the petitioner's services was invalid on two grounds: (1) the reduction certificate required under Rule 6(1)(ii) was not issued until after the order was passed; and (2) the list referred to in Rule 7, which was necessary for determining the order of termination of services, was not in existence when the order was passed.
Issues: 1. Whether the order terminating the petitioner's services complied with the conditions laid down in Rule 6 of the Rules? 2. Whether the reduction certificate required under Rule 6(1)(ii) was issued prior to the passing of the order? 3. Whether the list referred to in Rule 7 was in existence when the order was passed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Rule 6(1) of the Rules and held that the reduction certificate is a condition precedent to the order of termination of services. The court further held that the date contemplated in Rule 6 is the date on which the services become "liable to termination," and not the date on which the services are actually terminated. 2. The court held that the reduction certificate was not issued until after the order terminating the petitioner's services was passed, and therefore, the order was invalid. 3. The court held that the list referred to in Rule 7 was not in existence when the order terminating the petitioner's services was passed, and therefore, the order was invalid.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order terminating the petitioner's services and the order rejecting his appeal.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition Shri Harcharan Lal was appointed as a Tractor Driver temporarily on the 14th of July 1053 at the-Central Sugarcane Station Lucknow then under the directorate of Indian Institute of Sugar Technology, situate at Kanpur. On the 1st of January, 1954 the Central Sugarcane Station at Lucknow became a separate department, and came to be known as the Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research under an independent Director. As a result of it, it came directly under the control of the Government of India, Ministry of Food and agriculture. On the 24th of October, 1960 a declaration was made under Rules 3 and 4 of the central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter called the Rules)appointing the petitioner as Tractor Driver in a quasi permanent capacity with effect from the 1st of July, 1959. On the 6th of April. 1961 a communication was issued by the Under Secretary to the government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture to the Director Indian Institute of sugarcane Research conveying the sanction of the President to the conversion of one temporary post of tractor driver into a permanent post. It may be mentioned that at that time there were two posts of temporary tractor drivers, one being held by the petitioner and the other being held by one Shri Sarwan Singh. Although Shri Sarwan Singh was junior to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Tractor Driver in a quasi-permanent capacity with effect from the 1st of July, 1958. On the 17th of February, 1962 the Director of Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from the 28th of February, 1962 under rule 5 of the Rules. A copy of the said order is filed as Annexure 3 with the writ petition. A similar order was passed against the other tractor driver Shri Sarwan Singh on the same date. On the 20th of February, 1962 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Director, Indian Institute of sugarcane Research seeking a clarification of the said order. Thereupon, the authorities realised their mistake and passed another order on the 28th February, 1962 by way of corrigendum correcting the previous order of the 17th of February, 1962. This order is Annexure 5 filed with the writ petition. In this order it is stated that the words "under Rule 5" in the order of the 17th of february, 1962 will be substituted by the words "under Rule 6 in the said order. On the same date they issued a Reduction Certificate as required by Clause (ii) of Rule 6 of the said Rules. On the 27th of February, 1962 the order terminating the services of Sarwan Singh was cancelled and he was reinstated. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the order terminating his services was dismissed on the 3rd of May, 1962. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for quashing the order of the termination of his services dated the 17th of February, 1962 and of the rejection of his appeal dated 3rd May, 1962. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order dated the 17th of february, 1962 terminating the services of the petitioner under Rule 6 is bad as it does not comply with the conditions laid down therein. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 which is the portion relevant for the purposes of the present case lays down as follows :--"6. (1) The service of a Government servant in a quasi permanent service shall be liable to termination (i) in the same circumstances and in the same manner as a Government servant in permanent service) or (ii) when the appointing authority concerned has certified that a reduction has occurred in the number of posts available for Government servants not in permanent service : provided that the service of a Government servant in quasi permanent service shall not be liable to termination under Clause (ii) so long as any post of the same grade and under the same appointing authority as the specified post held by him, continues to b
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
