B.S. SHARMA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 722 · Decided: 17-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B.S. SHARMA 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 17, 2000 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 235. 
Judicial Officer-Deputation-Control of High Court. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : 
Section 7-C-Scope and applicability of 
Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. 
Rule 19-Applicability of 
Judicial Officer-Deputation-Superannuation-Age of superannuation 
in Department of deputation higher than age of superannuation in parent 
department-Entitlement to benefit of higher superannuation age. 
Haryana Judicial Service-Additional District Judge-Deputation as 
Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal cum labour Court-lien of Judicial 
Officer not terminated in the parent department-His name continued on the 
gradat~on list of Judicial Service-Held, in such circumstance Judicial Officer 
F 
was not entitled to benefit of higher age of superannuation prescribed in the 
Department of Deputation-Held, Judicial Officer did not severe his 
G 
.. relationship in the Judicial Service-He remained under control of the High 
Court under Article 235-He was not absorbed in service which had a 
higher superannuation age-Section 7-C of the Industrial Disputes Act held 
inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 
19326 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27 .1.2000 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C. W.P. No. 1054 of2000. 
H 
722 
B.S. SHARMA v. STATE 
723 
Jitendra Shanna and P.N. Puri for the Petitioner. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
The petitioner was appointed in the Judicial Service of the State of B 
Haryana as a Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate in September, 1975 and was 
appointed as an Addi. District Judge in May, 1988. Pursuant to a request of 
the Government, the Registrar of the High Court issued proceedings dated 
26.7.97 relating to 'transfers and postings' of officers, as per the decision of 
the Full Court. The petitioner was shown as transferred and posted as' 
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, in the place of another C 
officer "who was recalled to the present cadre". A notification was thereafter 
issued by the Government on 16.9.97 under Section 8 of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 appointing petitioner as Presiding Officer, as stated above. 
The petitioner now contends that even if he reaches the age of 
superannuation in the Judicial Service (i.e. 60 years), he can still continue as D 
Presiding Officer till he completes 67 years. He relies on Section 7-C of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7. 
The provisions of Section 7-C of the Act read as follows: · 
"Section 7-C: Disqualifications for the Presiding Officer of Labour E 
Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals. No person shall be appointed 
to, or continue in, the office of the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court, 
Tribunal or National Tribunal, if: 
(a) He is not an idependent person; or 
(b) He has attained the age of sixty five years." 
Later, the words '65 years' were substituted as ' 67 years'. 
F 
The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the High 
Court by a well-reasoned order. The High Court adverted to Rule 19 of the G 
Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 as adopted in the State of 
Haryana initially, and as amended on 24.3.1998 and as finally amended on 
11.11.1999 and held that having regard to the control of the High Court under 
Article 235 of the Constitution of India, Rule 19 as it originally stood and as 
amended on 24.3.1998 was not in conformity with Article 235 of the Constitution 
of India. Hence, the rule as it stood before 11.11.99 could not be relied upon. H 
724 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A The rule as it stands after amendment on 11.11.99 is in confonnity ""ith Article 
235 of the Constitution. The amended rule keeps the control of the officers 
entirely with the High Court. 
The High Court held that the petitioner continued to belong to the 
"parent department in the Judicial Service and his age of superannuation 
B would be 60 years as per the said rules and his name continued to be shown 
in the seniority lists of the Judiciary even after his posting as Presiding 
Officer. The petitioner could not state how he ceased to be in the Judicial 
Service. The High Court held: 
c 
D 
E 
F 
"The narration of the factual position in respect of the petitioner 
extracted above reveals that it was the High Court itself
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.