SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 1275

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.
U.P. GRAM PANCHAYAT ADHIKARI SANGH AND OTHERS Appellants;
Versus
DAYA RAM SAROJ AND OTHERS Respondents.
Civil Appeals No. 1895 of 2006t with Nos. 1896 - 1902, 3455, 3523 of 2006, 8302 - 19 of 2004, 680,1083 - 84,2920 of 2005, 6090 of 2001 and Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 114 and 141 of 2006,
Decided on December 11, 2006
Advocates appeared
Sunil Gupta, Rakesh Dwivedi, Ravindra Srivastava, N.C. Jain, Jawahar Lal Gupta, Dr.
Rajeev Dhawan and Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocates (Rajeev Dubey, Vivek Vishnoi, T. Mahipal, Kavin Gulati, Ms Rashmi, Vibhakar Mishra, Kamal Pandey, K.L. Janjani, Ejaz Maqbool, Ms Taruna Singh, Jeevan Prakash, Vishvendra Verma, Ambhoj Kr. Sinha, Kamlendra Mishra, S.w.A. Qadri, Manoj Mishra, Gaurav Bhatia, Adarsh Upadhayay, Fuzail Khan, Kunal Verma, M. Mannan, Arjun Garg, Rajul Shrivastava, Ms Mahalakshmi Pavani, G. Balaji (for Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.), 9 Amit Pawan, T.N. Rao, E.C. Agrawal, Mahesh Agarwal, Subhash Chandra Birla, Subrat Birla, Ms Lalita Kaushik, Sanjay Jain, Mukesh Kumar, Vinay Arora, Ms Manita Verma, S.K. Sinha, Sunil Kr. Jain, Y.A. Syed Muhammad, Subramonium Prasad, Raghavendra S. Srivastava, R. Gopalakrishnan, Jai Kishor Singh, Karun Mehta, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, G.Y. Rao, Sunil Singh, Ms Mukti Singh, Dr. Kailash Chand, T.T.K. Deepak & Co., Praveen Swarup, Pramod Dayal and T.Y. George, Advocates) for the appearing parties.

Headnote:U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 – Sections 25, 25-A and 34 – Constitution of India – Articles 243-G, 40, 37 and 309 – G.O. dt. 19-7-2005 – Issued to re-transfer all Tube-well operators – And repatriate Tube-well operators, as well as Part Time Tube-well operators of Irrigation Depts. to their parent Depts., under control of parent Depts. – Disputes, with regard to – Judicial discipline – Transfer – Lock, Stock and Barrels – Propriety vested in Gram Panchayats – And question whether it was a transfer – And question whether it was a deputation simpliciter, or transfer – Hence, basic question for its consideration – Held, (i) Judicial discipline demands that when decision of a Coordinate Bench of same High Court, was brought to notice of Bench, it was respected and binding subject of course, to the right to take a different view, or to doubt correctness of decision and permissible course then often was to refer question, or case to a larger Bench; (ii) As regards transfers, they had a lien with parent Depts and they had gone back to Parent Depts; (iii) transfer would be made with such designation, as may be specified in G.O. – Transfers and posting in Gram Panchayats, would be made by such authority, as may be notified by State Government – Transferred employees and Gram Panchayats, would be under supervision and control of Gram Panchayats – And they had to perform such duties, as specified by State Government; (iv) They were on deputation; (v) Hence, order of Single Judge restored – Therefore, employees were directed to go back to their parent Depts., and resumed duties. [Paras 27, 39, 47, 58 to 62]

Judgment

H.K. SEMA, J. - The Constitution (Seventy - third Amendment) Act, 1992 came into force on 24 - 4 - 1993. The said amendment was brought into force to give effect to one of the directive principles of State policy, Article 40 of the Constitution of India, which directs the State to organise Village Panchayats as units of self - government. Article 40 reads as under:

"40. Organisation of Village Panchayats. - The State shall take steps to organise Village Panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self - government. "

2. Part IV of the Constitution deals with "directive principles of State policy". Article 37 provides that the provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.

3. By the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Article 243 - 0 was introduced in the Constitution of India. Article 243 - 0 reads as under:

"243 - 0. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats. - Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the legislature of a State may, by law, endow the panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self - government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats at the appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may a be specified therein, with respect to -

(a) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice;

(b) the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule."

4. Article 243 - G, thus, endows the Panchayats with such power and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self - government. Such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats, subject to conditions as may be specified, with respect to the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those c in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution.

5. To implement the 73rd Constitution Amendment, the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (U.P. Act 26 of 1947) (hereinafter "the Act") was amended and various Government Orders were passed. We shall advert to the amendment and orders passed there under at an appropriate time.

6. We have heard S/Shri Sunil Gupta, P.N. Misra, Ashok H. Desai, Rakesh Dwivedi, N.C. Jain, Jawahar Lal Gupta, L. Nageswara Rao, M.N. Rao, P.P. Rao, A.K. Ganguli, Arun Jaitley, Mathai M. Paikeday, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Raju Ramachandran, S.K. Kalia, Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocates appearing for various appellants/respondents. We have also heard other learned counsel appearing for different parties.

Facts

7. The facts in these appeals have a chequered history, which we may recite briefly. By Government Orders (G.Os.) dated 12 - 4 - 1999, 29 - 4 - 1999, 5 - 5 - 1999 and 27 - 5 - 1999 the services of the employees of eight departments were transferred to the Gram Panchayats. The employees, so transferred, were to serve the Gram Panchayats (GPs) as multi - purpose workers or Gram t, Panchayat Evam Vikas Adhikaris (GPVAs). The aforesaid orders were challenged by filing writ petitions on the grounds of CO arbitrariness, and (ii) (executive) interference with the statutory rights of government employees under the service rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution. The basic grievance raised was that whereas in the parent department, they were governed by respective service rules framed under Article 309 of the g Constitution, they were being transferred to Gram Panchayats where there were no service rules governing


















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top