D.M. BHARATI versus L.M. SUD AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 580 · Decided: 19-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
D.M. BHARAT! 
v. 
L.M. SUD AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 
rs. RANGANATHAN AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
Service Law: Bombay Municipal Corporation-Deputation from 
one Establishment 10 another-Promotion obtained in the Establish-
ment depuied to-Whether confers any right for higher posts in the 
parent department, on reversion. 
The appellant was appointed as a Tracer in the Municipal Corpo-
ration in 1955. With the appointment of a Town Planning Officer in 
1957, the appellant came to be appointed as a Tracer in the Town 
Planning Establishment. Later, the post of Junior Draftsman fell vacant 
in the Town Planning Establishment. Respondent No. 6 was posted to 
fill the vacancy. However, his appointment was cancelled shortly there-
after and the appellant was appointed as Junior Draftsman with effect 
from 4.12.1959. 
The next higher post of Surveyor-cum-Draftsman fell vacant in 
1962. '.\leanwhile, the appellant was suspended. The Industrial Court 
E 
granted approval for his removal from service, but suggested that he 
may he reappointed. Accordingly, the appellant was appointed afresh 
as Junior Draftsman in the Estates Department of the Municipal Corpo-
ration where he was previously working. 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a \\rit Petition before the High 
F 
Court. Setting aside the order, the High Court remanded the matter to 
the Industrial Court for fresh disposal. The Special Leave Petition pre-
ferred by the employer, viz., the Municipal Corporation against the 
High Court's order was dismissed. 
The Industrial Court reheard the matter and declined approval 
G 
for the removal of the appellant from service. The appellant was reap-
pointed as Junior Draftsman in the Town Planning Establishment 
which was abolished subsequently, and he was reverted to the service of 
the Mufiicipal Corporation as a Tracer, and not as a Junior Draftsman. 
The appellant filed an appeal against the said order, but it was rejected 
on the ground that direct recruits were already working as Junior 
H 
Draftsmen and that there was no vacancy against which the appellant 
could be appointed. 
580 
" 
-
) 
D.M. BHARAT! c. L.M. SUD 
581 
The appellant moved the High Court by way of a Writ Petition. 
contending that since he had been appointed as Junior Draftsman in the 
Town Planning Establishment, he could not be repatriated to a lower 
post, viz., ]'racer in the Municipal Corporation . .It was also contended 
that the Deputy Municipal Cornmissioner, was a pefson lower in rank 
than the appointing authority viz., the Municipal CommissiOner.-and 
hence the order passed by him was without jurisdiction. 
The High Court proceeded on the footing that the appellant was 
on deputation from Municipal Corporation to the Town Planning 
Establishment and dismissed the Writ Petition. The appellant has pre' 
ferred this appeal against the High Court's order dismissing his Writ 
Petition. 
Dismissing the appeal. this Court. 
A 
.B 
c 
HELD: 1..1 The appellant's promotion as Junior Draftsman and 
proposed promotion as Surveyor-cum-Drafts1nan in the Town Planning 
Establishment cannot confer any rights on him in his parent depart-
D 
men!. When he left the Municipal Corporation and joined the Town 
Planning Establishment he was a Tracer and he can go back to the 
Estate Department o.r any other Department of the Municipal Corpora-
tion only to his original post i.e., as Tracer, subject to the mo9,ification 
that. if in the meantime he had qualified for promotion to a higher post. 
that benefit cannot he denied to him. 
E 
1.2 The order dated 16.8.1965 was passed in pursuance of the 
recommendation of the Industrial Court, while approving the appel-
lant's removal, th3t he may be reconsidered for appoinhnent. ln view of 
this order of the Industrial Court, the appellant had to be given a 
posting and since he had been discharged from service when he was a 
F. 
,Junior Draftsman, orders. were passed appointing him as junior 
Draftsman. This again was made as an order of fresh appointment and 
the appellant's representation that he should he given seniority was 
rightly not .accepted. There is also the 'further _fact that the appellant 
was relieved from this post with effect from October I, 1967. There has 
been, apparently; no challenge to this ord~r. J\tloreover, theses orders 
G 
lost their basis once the petitioner w3s restored to his post in the Town 
Planning Establishment. In these circumstances the order dated 16.8.65 
or the determination 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.