K. GOPAUL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 12-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K.GOPAUL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
Avril 12, 1967 
627 
B 
[K. N. WANCHOO, C.J., V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Constitution of India-Articles 14, 311-Appe/lant occupying post of 
Inspector General of 
Registration, 
Madras-Post 
included In I.A.S. 
l~adre--Appellant transferred to another· post 
no.~ as head of 
4eparr~ 
ment-Whether reduction in rank-Central Govt. including a post in one 
State in l.A.S. Cadre and not tn another-Whether discrimination. 
The appellant was holding and had been confirmed in the post of 
Inspector General of Registration (I.G.R.), Madras, when, on Novem-
ber 11 1963, the post of I.G.R. was included in the cadre of the Indian 
Adminlstrative Service (I.A.S.). On January 25, 1964, a Government 
order was issued posting a member of the I.A.S. who was holding the 
po;t of a Deputy Secretary, as l.G.R., Madras, vice the appellant. 
On 
January 30, 1964 by an~ther order, the appellant was posted to act tem-
porarily as Accommodation Controller. Madras and the person whom be 
replaced was posted as Director of Fisheries, Madras, 
The appellant's. 
appointment was made on the same grade pay which he was then draw-
ing plus certain special allowances. The appellant moved a petition under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the two orders of January 25 
and January 30, 1964. 
While the petition before the High Court was pending, by another 
order dated June 6, 1964 the temporary post of Accommodation Con-
troller which earlier existed in the cadre of Deputy Secretary (Non-
1.A.S.), was kept in abeyance with effect from February 6, 1964 and a 
new temporary post of Accommodation Controller, Madra•, was sanction-
ed in the same grade as that of the appellant and it was directed that the 
appellant be deemed to have acted in that post from February 6, 1964 
to April 14, 1964. The appellant then moved another writ petition chal-
lenging this order. A single Bench of the High Court dismissed the 
two petitions. While the appeals were pending before a Division Bench. 
the Court was informed through a 
letter from the Government ·to its 
counsel that when the post of I.G.R. was included in the I.A.S. service 
cadre, the Government had Alecided that in order to protect the Tights of 
the appellant, a supernumerary post of I.G.R. should be created 
with 
effect from November 11, 1963. Taking notice of this lelter the High· 
~n dismissed the appeals holding that all the rights of the appellants 
in respect of pension and gratuity had been protected and there had been 
no removal from service or reduction in rank in the case of the appel-
lant. By orders dated October 6, 1966 and February 10, 1967, the super-
numerarv post of LG.I. was sanctioned up to such time as the appellant 
was confirmed Jn another post. 
Jn the ~ppeal before this Court it was contended on behalf of the 
a.Ppellant (1) that by transferring him and posting him as Accommoda-
tion .C:Ontroller he had been reduced in rank without complying with tho 
provisions of Art. 31,1 of the Constitution; the I.G.R. was declared head 
of a Department whtle the Accommodation Controller was not head of 
a department; t~e post of Accommodation Controller was held by an offi-
cer who, on relief by the appellant, was promoted to the post created in 
the grade of a Deputy Secretary and from this it must be inferred that 
628 
SUPllEMB COURT llEPOllTS 
(1967) 3 S.C.R. 
the post of Accommodation Controller was lower in rank than the post 
of a Deputy Secretary, whereas the post of I.G.R. was 
a rank higher 
than that of a Deputy Secretary; (ii) that while the appellant was holding 
the post of I.G.R. be bad a lien on a permanent post, but, when be was 
>ent to the post of Accommodation 
Controller. the appellant was left 
\vithout a lien on any permanent post and that would necessarily deprive 
him of his rights to pension and gratuity which would amount to his re-
moval from service as a punishment; and (iii) that the post of I.G.R. 
had been placed in the cadre of I.A.S. in the State of Madras only and 
in no other State and, as a consequence, the appellant lost his appoint-
ment to that post due to the unequal treatment. 
HELD : Dismissing the appeal : 
(i) The mere fact that the post of Accommodation 
Controller to 
which the appellant had been transferred was not designated the post of 
a head of department did not necessarily involve any ·reduction in rank. 
It is \\'Cl! kno\'1n that a ·Government servio~. there m

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