STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus NAVNEET VERMA

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 31-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

), 
A 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
-
NA VNEET VERMA 
OCTOBER 31, 2007 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
A 
Service law: 
r-
c 
Abolition of post-Termination, pursuant to abolition of 
temporary post-Sustainability of-Held: Posts are created, continued 
and abolished by the Government in the interest of administration and 
general public-On facts, decision to abolish temporary post taken on 
basis of the overall assessment of work load and staff requirement and 
D was finally approved and sanctioned by Government-Entire action 
was taken in good faith-Hence, abolition of post justified and 
1-
consequent termination of employee, sustainable. 
Abolition of post-Power of Government-Scope of-Stated 
Judicial review: Abolition of post-Interference by Court-Scope 
...., 
E of-Stated 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was 
whether abolition of the post of Accounts Executives in the Haryana 
Bureau of Public Enterprises (HBPE), and thereafter consequential 
F order of termination terminating the respondent from the said post 
. '.r· 
.... 
was done in good faith or was it a camouflage to cover up and conceal 
the real intention of weeding out the respondent from service. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. The power of Government in abolishing a post and 
role of the Court for interference, the power to create or abolish a 
~ ..... 
post rests with the government, whether a particular post is 
necessary is a matter depending upon the exigencies of the situation 
and administrative necessity; creation and abolition of posts is a 
H 
762 
-"'1 
>· 
STATE v. NA VNEETVERMA 
763 
matter of Government policy and every sovereign Government has A 
this power in the interest and necessity of internal administration; 
creation, continuance and abolition of posts are all decided by the 
Government in the interest of administration and general public; the 
court would be the least competent in the face of scanty material to 
decide whether the Government acted honestly in creating a post B 
or refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from malafide, legal 
or factual;-as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good 
faith in the absence of material, interference by the court is not 
warranted. [Parall] [770-F,G; 771-A,B,C] 
2.1. The first complaint by the respondent shows that there was C 
some misunderstanding between the Accounts Executive and 
Financial Adviser. However, on scrutiny it showed that only Personal 
Assistant to Financial Adviser was responsible for the alleged 
misbehaviour. Further, Respondent made a complaint to Hon 'ble the 
Chief Minister of Haryana about his difficulty in working as an D 
Accounts Executive with HBPE. The complaint made it clear that 
the Accounts Executive had some grievance against the Member 
Secretary and the Financial Advisor regarding the distribution of 
work. The materials placed showed that on the basis of the complaint, 
a preliminary enquiry was conducted and ultimately no action was E 
taken based on the same. Though certain misunderstanding arose 
between the Accounts Executive and the Financial Adviser, it is 
impossible to believe that for this reason the Government abolished 
the post of Accounts Executive and consequently terminated the 
service of the respondent. 
~-
[Paras 13 and 15] [771-F, G; 774-B, C, D] 
2.2. Appellant submitted that taking note oflesser activities of 
HBPE and after assessing the work load as well as sanctioned staff 
and after full deliberations by responsible officers, it was 
recommended to the Government for abolition of two posts of G 
Accounts Executives. On accepting the recommendations of the 
Committee constituted by HBPE, the Government passed an order 
according sanction to abolish two temporary posts of Accounts 
Executives sanctioned for HBPE. Based on the said decision of the 
Government and in view of Condition No.2 of the appointment letter H 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I I S.C.R. 
A of the respondent that the appointment of the respondent was fully· 
against temporary post and the same was liable to be 'abolished at 
any time and without notice whenever there was no vacancy against 
which he could be retained, his services were terminated. In such 
circumstances, the claim of the respondent that there was no bona 
B fide· in terminating his service and the High Court erred in accepting 
the said claim, cannot be accepted. [Para 14) [772-B, C, D, E, F) 
2.3. A perus

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