MAHESH KUMAR MUDGIL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 08-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

l ' 
MAHESH KUMAR MUDGIL 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 1997 
(SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law-Abolition of temporary post-No order of extension nor 
any financial sanction for continuing the post-Post automatically lapses. 
A 
B 
Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business 1975: Rule 4(2)-Having Mandate of C 
Article 166 of the Constitution of India-Concurrence of finance department 
mandatory-Office memorandum creating new and equivalent post and 
abolishing earlier post issued with the assent of the finance depart-
ment-Valid-Post created in Secretariat Establishment can be used in at-
tached or subordinate office-Such office does not acquire a right to hold 011 D 
to the post. 
The issue arising for consideration is whether a temporary post 
created in the cadre of one Government department can be abolished by 
another department of the State. Government. 
The sanction for creation of one temporary post of Officer on Special 
Duty (Special Component Plan), at Secretarial level, was communicated 
E 
by Secretary to Government of Uttar Pradesh to the Director, Harijan and 
Social Welfare Department vide order dated 16.10.1980. This order was 
issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. The post was 
created for an initial period upto 28.2.1981 but was extended by various F 
Government orders from time to time, and lastly upto 28.2.1985. 
By an office memorandum dated 8.S.1984, the Secretariat Ad-
ministration (Establishment) created a new, equivalent post in the cadre 
of the U.P. Secretariat Service and abolished the earlier post, which was G 
being held by the appellant since 16.10.1980. This order was also iss!led 
with the assent of the Finance department. 
The appellant challenged the memorandum of 8.S.1984 on the 
ground that having worked on the post for more than three years, he had 
acquired the right to be confirmed against the said post, by converting the H 
237 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A same into a permanent one if necessary. He had also contended that since 
the post was borne on the cadre of the Directorate of Harijan & Social. -
Welfare Department, it could not be abolished by the Secretariat Ad-, 
ministration (Establishment). The High Court rejected both the conten-
tions and dismissed the writ petition by its order dated 27.4.1989, which is 
B 
impug~ed in the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The orders creating and abolishing the temporary post 
had both been issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department, in 
C accordance with the U.P. !Rules of Business 1975, and were thus issued with 
proper authority and were valid. (243-E-H; 244-A] 
1.1. The temporary post was created at the Secretariat level though 
in the cadre of the Harijan & Social Welfare Department and could be 
validly abolished by the Secretariat Administration (Establishment) and 
D a new temporary and equivalent post in the cadre of the State Secretariat 
Service created, with the assent of the finance department. (243-E-H] 
E 
1.2. The utilization of a post created in the Secretariat Establishment 
of the Ministry, in any attached or subordinate office, does not confer any 
right on such office to hold on to that post. [245-B] 
2. A temporary post automatically lapses on completion of its tenure, 
when there is no order granting any extension nor any order granting 
financial sanction for continuance of the same. [243-G-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2863 of 
F 
1989. 
,. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.89 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 2464 of 1984. 
Anil Kumar Gupta for the Appellant. 
Dr. KS. Chauhan and R.B. Misra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. WADHWA, J. That appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 
H April 27, 1989 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow 
M.KMUDGILv. STATE[D.P. WADHWA,.T.] 
239 
Bench) dismissing his writ petition wherein his challenge to the post of A 
-... Officer on Special Duty (Special Component Plan) which he was holding, 
failed. 
The appellant joined Secretariat service of the respondent as Lower 
Division Assistant in the temporary capacity in the year 1975. Whereafter B 
he was promoted as Upper Division Assistant. While the appellant was 
holding the post of Upper Division Assistant in officiating capacity, he was 
selected and appointed on ex- cadre post of Officer on Special Duty 
(Special Componen

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