LexNARESH CHANDRA SAHA versus UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 639 NARESH CHANDRA SABA v. UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA & ORS. October 6, 1969 [J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HBGDB, JJ.] Civil Servant-Reposting in officiating po.rt held at the time of dl.s- missal after order of dismissal set aside-Subsequent reversion to substan- tive post-Legality. Practice and Proc~ure-Petition filed in High Courl challenging order passed 7 years before-If could be entertained. The appellant, who W"3 a junior officer in the State service, was ap- pointed as an officiating senior officer on May 10, 1954. O~ May 12, 1954, an order was passed reverting hilll to the post of junior officer. On the ground that he refused to ohey the order of reversion, on May 6, 1957 he was suspended, and ultimately dismissed. The orders of ~he. suspension and dismissal were set aside by the Coun of Judicial Commissioner. By orde< dated November 7. 1960, he was reinstated in the, post of the senior officer which he was holding on the date of his suspension, with effect from the afternoon of May 7, 1957. By the same order. he was reverted to his substantive post of junior officer with retrospective effect from June. 7, 1957, as another officer was alr.-ady occupying the post. The appellant, thereupon, challenged both the orders dated May 12, 1954, and November 7, 1960, but the Judicial Commissioner dismissed the petition. In appeal to this Court, HELD: (1) The order dated November 7, 1960 reverting the ap- pe11ant to his substantive post did not entail forfeitur~ of the appellant's pay or aUowances, or toss of seniority in his substantive rank, or stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion. The appellant could not claim the: salary of the senior post from the date of suspension or dismis5al till date of reinstatement, because, the appropriate authority, when reinstating thC appellant could revert him, as from an earlier date, to his substantive post from the officiating post. provided the order was not passed ma/a fide. [641 H; 642 B-Cl Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, [19581 S.C.R. 828, referred to. ' (2) There is nothing to show that any retrospective operation \VQS given to the order dated May 12, 1954 In any event, the Judicial Com- missioner was justified in refusing to entertain any contention as to its vali~itv seven years after the order was passed. [640 HJ CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2203 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 8, 1965 of the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Tripura in Writ Petition No. 27 of 1961. M. Jr. Romamurthi and Shyama/o Pappu, for the appellant. V. A. &yid Muhammad, S. P. Nayar and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent~. ·;,.. ' 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970) 2 S.C.R. The J udgrnent of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The appellant joined the Tripura Civil Service en October 30, 1949, and was posted as a probationer Divisional Purchasing Officer, Dhannnagar. In 1953 the Tripura Civil Service was split into iwo cadres-senior officers being absorbed as Sub-Divisional Officers and junior officers as Sub-Treasury Officers. The appellant was absorbed as Sub-Treasury Officer with effect from April 1, 1950. On May 10, 1954, the appellant ·was appointed officiating Sub-Divisional Officer with effect from September 10, 1953. By order dated May 12, 1954, the appel· !ant was reverted io the post of Sub-Treasury Officer with effect from May 6, 1954. The appellant made several representations to the Chief Commissioner but without success. The appellant was suspended by order dated May 6. 1957, for failure to obey the orders of the Additional District Magistrate and he was dis- missed with effect from July 3, 1958, by the order of the Chief Commissioner. A B c The appellant moved a petition in the Court of the Judicial D Commissioner at Tripura challenging the orders of susJiension and dismissal. On February 19, 1960 the Court set aside the impugned orders. By order dated November 7, 1960 the Chief Commissioner reinstated the appellant to the post of Superinten- dent of Surveys and by the same order reverted him to his sub- stantive post of Sub-Treasury Officer with retrospective effecr E from June 7, 1957. The appeal of the appellant to the President having been rejected, he moved a petition in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for a writ quashing the orders dated May 12, 1954 and November 7, 1960. The appellant cont
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.