SHRI MADHAV LAXMAN VAIKUNTHE versus THE STATE OF MYSORE

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 12-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

Hiralal Patni 
v. 
Loonkaram 
Sethiya 
Subba Rao ]. 
April I2, 
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
' '.. 
deciding the conflicting claims of a lessee and a third 
party arises in this cas~; nor is the court called upon 
to pronounce on the vested rights of a lessee in con-
flict with those of the Receiver. But this is a simple 
case of a court in the course of its administration of 
the estate through the agency of a receiver making a 
suitable provision for the running of the mills. 
As 
the agreed term had expired, the court, in our view, 
could certainly direct the appellant to put the mill in 
the possession of the Receiver. 
Lastly it has. been brought to our notice that an 
application for the discharge of the Receiver is pend-
ing in the lower court. Any observations that we 
have made in this judgment are not intended to affect 
the merits one way or other in the disposal of that 
application. That application will be disposed of in 
accordance with law. 
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with 
costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
SHRI MADHA V LAXMAN V AIKUNTHE 
v. 
THE STATE OF MYSORE 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Public Servant-Reversion to substantive rank-If and when 
punishment-Test-Recovery of arrears of salary-Limitation-
Government of India Act, 1935 (26 Geo. 5, ch. 2), s. 240(3)--Con-
stitution of India, Art. 3n(2)-lndian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 
r908), art. ro2. 
The appellant, who held the rank of a Mamlatdar in the 
first grade and was officiating as District Deputy Collector, was 
alleged to have' wrongly charged travelling allowance for 59 
! 
I 
J
miles instead of 5 I and was, as the result of a departmental 
~ 
enquiry, reverted to his substantive rank for three years and 
l 
) 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
887 
directed to refund the excess he had charged. He made a re-
r96r 
presentation to the Government which was of no avail although 
. 
the Accountant General was of the opinion that the appellant 
Shri Madhav 
had not overcharged and committed no fraud. Ultimately the,Laxman Vaikunthe· 
appellant was promoted to the selection grade but the order of 
v. 
reversion remained effective and affected his position in the State 0! Mysore 
·selection grade. After retirement he brought a suit for a de-
claration that the order of reversion was void and for recovery 
of Rs. r2,516 and odd as arrears of salary, allowances, etc., with 
interest and future interest. The trial court held that there 
was no compliance with the provisions of s. 240(3) of the 
Government of India Act, 1935, granted the declaration but 
refused the.arrears claimed. The plaintiff filed an appeal and 
the State a cross-objection and the High Court dismissed the 
appeal and allowed the cross-objection, holding that the order of 
reversion was not a punishment within the meaning of s. 246(3) 
of the Government of India Act, r935. 
Held, that the matter was covered by the observations of 
this Court in Purshottam Lal Dhingra' s case and of the two tests 
of punishment laid down by this Court, namely, (1) whether the 
servant had a right to the rank or (2) whether he had been 
visited by ~vii consequences of the kind specified therein, the 
second certainly applied. The appellant might or might not 
have the right to hold the higher post, but there could be no 
doubt that he was visited with evil consequences as a result of 
the order of reversion. 
Mere deprivation of higher emoluments, ho;vever, in conse-
quence of an order of reversion could not by itself satisfy that 
test which must include such other conseqnences as forfeiture 
of substantive pay and loss of seniority. In the instant case, by 
the order of reversion for three years to his substantb,e post, 
the appellant lost seniority and promotion and the belated 
action of the Government could not wholly undo the mis-
chief. 
Since the requirement of s. 240(3) of the Government of 
~ 
India Act, 1935, which corresponds to Art. 3u(2) of the Consti-
tution, had not been found to have been fully complied with, 
the order of reversion must be held to be void. 
Pttrshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, [1958] S.C.R. 
826, applied. 
The claim of arrears of salary was governed by art. 102 of 
the Indian Limitation Act, and the appellant, therefore, was 
entitled to no more than what fell due during the 3 years pre-
vious to his retirement. 
The Punjab Provinte v. Pandit Tarachand, [1947] F.C.R. 8

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