LexH. LYNGDOH & ORS. versus GROMLYN LYNGDOH, JUDGE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H H. L YNGDOH & ORS. v. GROML YN L YNGDOH, JUDGE March 2, 1971 [K. S. HEGDE AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] -- - 903 Asmm Fundamental Rules, rr. 9(22), ~6-Age of Superannuation 55 years-Me1nber of Assan1 Judicial Service appointed temporarily as Judge vf Distric~ Council Court of the Autonomous District of United Khasi- jaintia Hills-Continued in service after superannuation by order of Dis- trict Council and placed in regular scale-Whether bcco1nes per;nanent employee within meaning of r. 9(22). On January 26, 1950 the Autonomous District of United Khasi-Jaintia Hills was constituted by virtue of the provisions of cl. 2 of Art. 244 and the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, and the Gove~or of Assam was empowered to administer the said Autonomous District. Pursuant thereto the Assam Autonomous District (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1961 were enforced as from October 15, 1951. On June 27, 1952 a District Council and an Executive Committee was constituted for the said autonomous District. The District Council was em- powered to constitute courts and appoint suitable persons as Presiding Officers. On June 7, 1954 the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules. 1953 were framed by the District Council. Under r. 9 a District Council Court was constituted for the Autonomous District. Judges were to be appointed by the Execu- tive Committee with the app'roval of the Governor. In the absence of any rules framed by the District Council under r. 15 of the Constitution of District Council Rules, the Assam Fundamental Rules. subsidiary Rules and instructions were applicable to the officers and staff or the District Council. The respondent who was an Additional District Judge in the senior Grade of the Assam Judicial Service was appointed with effect from 7-1-1954 temporarily as a Judge of the District Council Court without the approval of the Oovemor. The Governor however appointed him also as an Additional District Judge, Lower Assam District. The scale of pay was Rs. 750--960-1000. On 16-2-1957 the respondent attained the age of superannuation on his completion of 55 years. Notwithstand- ing this the District Council continued him in service and by its order dated 22-4-1965 placed him in the regular scale of Rs. 1200--60 (E.B.)-- 60-1500 with effect from 1-4-1965. However subsequently the Executive Committee terminated his services with effect from August 31, 1966. The respondent challenged this order by writ petition in the High Court. There- after .by special leave the matter came up in appeal before this Court. The question for consideration was whether in view of the definition of a per- manent. post under Assam Furrdamental Rule 9(22) as a post 'carrying a defimte scale of pay. sanctioned without limit of time', the respondent '-''as a permanent emp1oyee. . HELD : The respondent's employment was temporary and was con- hnumg as su.ch. ¥erely placing him in a scale of pay which was different to the one m which he was temporarily appointed did not make him a pem1anent employee. To become permanent he must be confirmed but that question could ~ever arise ?ecause under Fundamental Rule 56 which was .1dm1ttedly apphcable to h1!11 the date of his compulsory retirement was the date on which he attamed the age of 55 years. After this he ------ 904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 3 S.C.R. could bt: retained with the sanction of the Government which adn1iitcdlv A in his cas.e had not been .given. Even if the validity of his appointmedr by the D1str1ct Council without the sanct_ion of the Governor which \\-'as '~ necessary condition for valid appointment was overlooked he cc:iuld not complain that his termination by the very Council wa; without the Governor's sanction. [906 E-G] The argument that the Governor had invested the Respondent with B powers for the. Schedule Districts and lower Assam was unhelpful because this was done. m 1954 long prior to his attaining the age of superannua- tlon. when without a valid extension of the service he could not con- tinue in service after that date. [906 HJ . Accordingly the appeal must be allowed and the writ petition <lis- n11sscd. [Pers.anal remarks by the Chief .Justice of the High Court against another Judge of that Court disapproved.] C1VJL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1929 of 1967. c Appeal by special leave from the judg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.