LexCHAMPAKLAL CHIMANLAL SHAH versus THE UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] 1963 to collect the tax as assessed and as decided in its favour.by the High Court. But when the respondent fails Thun~abhadra in the objections raised to prevent the matter coming to Industries Ltd. this Court, we do not see any justification for the plea v. that costs should not follow the event but that the The Government appellant should be deprived of it 5right to sosts. of Andhra Pra- In the result the appeal is allowed and the com- desh mon judgment of the High Court in the three appeals is reversed and the petitions for review-C.M.Ps Ayyangar J. 4672, 4673 and 4674 of 1959 on the file of the High Court are allowed with costs here and in the High 1963 October 23 Court-one set of hearing fees. Appeal allowed. CHAMPAKLAL CHIMANLAL SHAH V. THE UNION OF INDIA (P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MuDHOhKAR JJ.) Government Servant-Central Civil Service-When is he quasi-permanent-Permanent and Temporary servants-Termina- tion of service-Difference in mode not discriminatory-Action by way of punishment-Even temporary servant entitled to benefit of Art. 311-Pre/iminary enquiry and departmental enquiry-Latter does not attract Art. 311(2)-Constitution of India, Art. 311- Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, rr. 3 and 5. The appellant was in the service of Union of India, his appoint- ment being temporary liable to be terminated on one month's notice on either side. He was appointed in June 1949. On August 1954 he was informed that his services would be terminated from September 1954. No cause was assigned for the termination of his services and no opportunity was given to him of showing cause against the action taken against him. Before such termination the appellant was called upon to explain certain irregularities and was also asked to submit his explanation and to state why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Certain preliminary enquiries were held against him but he was not heard therein. No regular departmental enquiry however followed and the proceedings were dropped. Claiming that he is a quasi- permanent servant he brought a suit against the Union of India alleging that the termination of his service was not justified. He prayed in the suit for a declaration that the termination of his service was illegal. He also claimed arrears of salary. The trial Court dismissed the suit and he appealed to the High Court • .. • 5 S.C.R. SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS 191 without success. The present appeal was filed on a certificate 1963 granted by the High Court. The first contention raised by the appellant was that he was Champaklal a quasi-permanent employee and r. 5 of the Central Civil Service Chimanlal Shah (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 did not apply to him. Secondly v. it was contended that r. 5 was invalid as it was hit by Art. 16 of the The Union of Constitution and in any event the action taken against him was discriminatory and therefore hit by Art. 16. It was further India contended that even if the appellant was a temporary servant he was entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. Held : (i) Sub-els. (1) and (2) of r. 3 should be read conjunc- tively and not disjunctively and both the conditions contained therein should be fulfilled before a Government servant can be deemed to be in quasi-permanent service. The Government servant has to show that he has been in continuous Government service for more than three years and that the appointing authority has made a declaration under sul>-cl. (2) of r. 3. This being the position, since no declaration has been made in his case, the appellant cannot claim the benefits of r. 6 which places a quasi-permanent servant and a permanent servant on the same footing in the matter of termination of service. Hence he cannot claim the protection of Art. 311(2) on the ground that he must be deemed to be in quasi- permanent service. B.M. Pandit v. Union of India, A.LR. 1962 Born. 45, Pursho- ttam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 828 and K.S. Srinivasan v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 1295, distinguished. (ii) R. 5 which provides for termination of the services of a temporary Government servant by giving him one month's notice is not hit by Art. 16. The classification of Government servants into permanent, quasi-permanent and temporary is reasonable and differenc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.