S.S. KARMALKAR & OTHERS ETC. versus IBRAHIM HUSSENI TAMBOLI & OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 712 · Decided: 31-10-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S.S. KARMALKAR & OTHERS ETC. 
v. 
IBRAHIM HUSSENI TAMBOLI & OTHERS ETC. 
•. 
OCTOBER 31, 1988 
B 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.) 
c 
D 
E 
Civil Services: Food and Civil Supplies Department Sholapur-
Whether part and parcel of Revenue Department-Inspecting 
Officers-Status of 
The appellants were promoted in January 1981 as Awai Karkuns 
in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies; Sholapur. At the same 
time, the private respondents holding those posts were directed to be 
repatriated to their parent department, that is, the Revenue Depart-
ment. The private respondents challanged these orders by way of a civil 
suit on the ground that these orders were unjust, ille~al and violative of 
Articles-14 and 16 of the Coustitution. The Civil Judge decreed the suit .. 
The Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court upheld the decree. 
· Tlte High Court came to the finding that the Food & Civil Supplies 
Department, Sholapur, had no separate existence on the date .the 
impugned order was passed and that it was part and parcel of the 
Revenue Department. 
It is contended by the private respondents that on the abolition of 
the statutory rationing, the Food & Civil supplies Department was 
abolished, and the appellants were absorbed in the Revenue Depart-
ment. This contention is disputed by the apellants. 
F 
Allowing the appeals, it was, 
HELD: (1) It was not disputed that after the introduction of 
statutory rationing, the Food & Civil Supplies Department was an inde-
pendent Government Department at Sholapur. l 7 lSG J 
G 
(2) It was wrong to assume that the Food & Civil Supplies 
Department dealing with food and supply thereof, was abolished conse-
quent on the abolition of the statutory rationing. [718D I 
(3) The fact of introduction or abolition of statutory rationing 
had nothing to do with the question of food and supply thereof, which 
B 
inust be dealt with by some department of the Government and after 
I 
S.S. KARMALKAR v. LS. TAMBOLI 
713 
the creation of the Food & Civil Snpplies Department, it was dealt with 
by that Department. [7I8C] 
( 4) As the Department existed, it conld be reasonably presumed 
that it had its own staff and the appellant's contention that they 
were retained in the Food & Civil Supplies Department seemed to be 
correct. [718Ef 
(5) There was no material in proof of the alleged absorption of the 
appellants in the Revenue Department. Moreover, as they did not fulfil 
the conditions for absorption in the Revenue Department, they could 
not be transferred to or absorbed in that Department. [717C; 718H] 
( 6) It is true that there was no order showing that the respondents 
were transferred on deputation from the Revenue Department to the 
Food & Civil Supply Department. It could, however, be reasonably 
presumed that the respondents were sent on deputation to the Food & 
Civil Supplies Department, otherwise there was no question of their 
A 
B 
c 
repatriation to their parent department. [718H; 719A] 
D 
(7) It was apparent from the fact that separate rules were framed for 
recruitment of officers in the Food anil Civil Supplies Department and a 
final gradation list was also prepared and published, that the Food and 
Civil Supplies Department was not part and parcel of the Revenue 
Department, but it had a separate and independent existence. [719G I 
E 
(8) As the appellants belonged to a different department, their 
promotions would be governed by the rules of that department. Simi· 
larly, the promotion of the private respondents would be considered in 
accordance with the rules of the Revenue Department. [72IA] 
Shri Atmaram Chaturvedi Garbade & Ors. v. State of 
Maharashtra & Ors., Special Civil Applications Nos. 707 of 1974 and 
4834 of 197~Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3804 
F 
m~~~, 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.1987 of the Bombay 
High Court in Second Appeal No. 404 of 1985, W.P. No. 607 of .1985 
and Second Appeal No. 86 of 1986. 
R.K. Garg, Vijay Hansaria and Sunil K. Jain for the Appellants. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
S.B. Bhasme, V.M. Tarkunde, A.S. Bhasme, V.N. Ganpule, 
S.K. Agnihotri, A.G. Pawar and A.B. Lal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DUTT, J. Special leave is granted in all these matters. Heard 
learned Counsel for the parties. 
The principal question that is involved in these appeals is some-
what pec

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