DR. (MRS.) GURJEEWAN GAREWAL versus DR. (MRS.) SUMITRA DASH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 1167 · Decided: 12-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. (MRS.) GURJEEWAN GAREWAL 
A 
v. 
DR. (MRS.) SUMITRA DASH AND ORS. 
APRIL 12, 2004 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 311-Postgraduate Institute of 
Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Act, 19661 Postgraduate Institute C 
of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Rules, 1967- Section 41 
Rule 36-Grant of Ex-India Leave-In the meantime Writ Petition by the 
employee against appointment of another employee-Non-joining of duty on 
expiry of the leave-Stay order by High Court against the Institute to initiate 
disciplinary proceedings for not joining the duty-Application of the Institute D 
to vacate the stay order pending-Joining report by employee rejected~ 
'> 
Application in the writ petition seeking order against the Institute to permit 
her to join-Direction to file separate Writ Petition-High Court allowed the 
other petition on the ground of violation of principles of Natural Justice and 
on the ground that her removal was bad under Article 311-0rant of permission 
by Institute to join-On appeal, held: Stay to initiate disciplinary proceedings E 
is liable to be vacated as the same could not have been granted in the first 
writ petition as the disciplinary proceedings and the Writ Petition were on 
different issues-Direction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings-The 
employee is not covered under Article 311 as she does not hold 'Civil Pc, st' 
and the institute is not a 'State' for the purpose of the Article. 
p 
Words and Phrases: 
'Civil Post'-Meaning of 
Respondent No. 1 was employee with the Respondent No. 2 Institute. G 
Ex-India leave was granted to respondent for two years on the condition 
inter alia that no extension of ex-India Leave would be granted. In the 
meantime she filed Writ Petition before High Court challenging selection 
and appointment of the petitioner. She requested extension of the leave 
which was refused and respondent institute informed her that she was 
1167 
H 
1168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004) 3 S. C.R. 
A deemed to have permanently left the institute w.e.f. the date of grant of 
the leave. She filed an application in the Writ Petition to stay the initiation 
of disciplinary proceedings against her for not joining duty on expiry of 
the leave and the same was granted. Thereafter respondent institute 
proposed to hold enquiry against respondent-I. She filed contempt petition 
on the plea that initiation of such inquiry was against the order of High 
B Court whereby, it had stayed initiation of such proceedings. Respondent 
moved application to vacate the stay which is still pending. Thereafter 
respondent-I requested respondent institute to permit her to join, treating 
her extended ex-India leave as leave under exceptional circumstances and 
forwarded her joining report. The same was rejected. She moved 
C application in the Writ Petition seeking directions to respondent institute 
to permit her to join duty. Application was rejected with liberty to move 
separate Petition. She filed second Writ Petition. High Court allowed 
the second petition on the ground that her request to join duty was declined 
without giving opportunity of hearing. High Court permitted her to join 
duty during pendency of the first Writ Petition. Respondent institute 
D permitted her to rejoin duty. Being aggrieved of the decision and 
subsequent action of respondent institute, appellant filed the present 
Special Leave Petition. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. As per Section 4 of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical 
Education and Research, Chandigarh Act, 1966 [PGIMER Act[, Post 
Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) is a 
separate entity in itself. The employees of any authority which is a legal 
entity separate from the State, cannot claim to be holders of civil posts 
F under the State in order to attract the protection of Article 311 of the 
Constitution of India. There is also no master and servant relationship 
between the State and an employee of PGIMER, which is a separate legal 
entity in itself. A person cannot be said to have a status of holding a 'civil 
post' under State merely because his salary is paid from the State fund 
or that the State exercises a certain amount of control over the post. The 
G PGIMER Act might have provided for some control over the institution 
but this doesn't mean that the same is a State for the purpose of Article 
311. Therefore the employees of PGIM

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