LexDIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT RAJ & ANR. versus BABU SINGH GAUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
400 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT RAJ & ANR. v. BABU SINGH GAUR November 18, 1971 (K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND H. 'R. KHANNA, JJ.] Civil Servic~Temporary Servants-Declared to be holding posts in substantive capacity-Posts s11bsequently 1nade permanent-No orde~s .of confirmation -ol individual officers-Tennination on one month's notrce- Legality-Fundamental Ruic 26(d) of Financial Hand Book, Vol. II• Part II-Scope. The respondents were appointed temporarily to thzir respective p6sts .and at the -time of ,their appointment the posts were also temporary. Sometime after, therr appointments, though temporary, were declared to be in substantive capacity within the meaning of the Order of the Governor regarding Fundamental Rule 26(d) of the Financial Hand Book Volume HI, Part JI, with retrospecth·e effect from the date of their first appoint- ment. These posts alongwith other temporary posts, were subsequently made permarient. However, the govcrnmr:::nt did not c;onsider the ques· tiorr of confirmation of the individual officers in these posts, The respon- d.ents' services we're terminatod by one rµonth's notice as provided in the rule for termination of the services of a government •crvant in temporary service. The respondents filed writpetitions challenging the orders of ter- mination of their services. The-High Court allowed these petitions. Set- ting ~ide the Orders of the High e"°rt and dismissing the writ petitions, HELD : Funoomental Rule 26(d) and the Order of the Governor clearly show that they merely d"'1lt with leave and increment and the order has nothing to do with the nantre of.the appointment. That order did not convert the appointments of temporary government servants either into Permanent appointments or into temporary appointment in substantive capacity in permanent posts. For purposes other thau those mentioned in the order their appointments continue to be tempornry. The High Court proceeded on the erroneous reasoning that as the respondents were hold- ing their posts in a substantive capacity though temporarily, they must be held to. have been holding those permanent posts in a substantive capa- city. · [ 405 CJ (ii) A temporary govern1ncnt servant does not becon1c permanent un- less he gets that capacity either nuder some rule or he is declared or ap- pointed bv the government a~ a· permanent govern111ent servant. At the tin1e of the conversion of the tc1nporary posts into vermanent posts the ·government . did not consider the question of -confinuation of the officers hol9ing those posts. And no rule has been shown under which the res- pondents can be considered ns having been appointed either pennancntly or in a substantive capacity to permanent posts: [405 G] St(lte of U.P. v. Abdul K'1alik. C. As. Nos. 782 & 783/66 decided on April 30, 1969, applied. \ . Pu1'~hotam Lal Dhingra v. The Union of India, fJ9581 S.C.R. 828 and Sti)te of Naga/and v. G. Vasantha, A.I.R. 19i0 S.C. 537. referred ~. . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1011 ana 1012 of 1966 .. B c D E F G H A B c D E .F G H PANCHAYAT RAJ v. BABU SINGH (Hegde, J.) 401 Appeals by special leave from the judgments and decrees dated February 12. 1965 and November 10, 1964 o~ the Allahabad Hieh Court in Special Appeals Nos. 298 of 1960 and 483 of 1962 respectively. G. N. Dixit and 0. P. Rana, for the appellants (in both the appeals). W. S. Barlingay, M. K. Pandey, S. K. Sabharwal and Ganpat Raf, for the respondents (in both the appeals). J. P. Goyal and R. K. Bhatt, for the intervener (in C.A. No. 1012 of 1966). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J, These are appeals by special leave. A common question of Jaw arises for decision in these two appeals. _Hence it is convenient to consider them together. The material facts are more fully set out in Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 1966. We shall set out those facts in detail. We shall refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 1011 of 1966 thereafter, briefly. The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 1966, Jugal Kishorc Bhatt was appointed as .Qte Sales-tax Officer on June 29, 1948 by the Governor of U.P. At the time of his appointment the posts of Sales-tax Officers were temporary posts. He joined the service in the Sales-tax department at Bareilly on July 15, 1948. His appointment was on temporary basis. He continued to serve in that department as Sales-tax Officer until the year 1951 on tempora
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.