STATE OF HARYANA versus DES RAJ SANGAR & ANR.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 1034 · Decided: 16-12-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
1034 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
DES RAJ SANGAR & ANR. 
December 16, 1975 
[H. R. KHANNA AND S. MURTAZA FAzAL ALI, JJ.] 
Civil Service-Right of Government to abolish post and dispense with ser-
vices of incumbent-Abolition of post held by permanent officer while retain-
ing post held by 11011-permanent officer, legality. 
Punjab Civil Service Ru/es, r. 3.14-Scope of-Abdlition of ex-cadre post-
Rigl!t of perS<}ll holding post to revert to his perma11e111 cadre post. 
The respondent was Head Assistant in the Panchayat Department of 
the 
Punjab Government. 
While he. was officiating as Superintendent in the Depart-
ment, he was appointed Panchayati Raj Election Officer, which was an ex-cadre 
post. 
On the reorganisation of the State, the respondent was allocated to the 
appellant·State and he continued to work as Panchayati Raj Election Officer in 
the appellant-State. In 1972, the State Government abolished the 
po,t 
of 
Panchayati Rai Election Officer and the services of the respondent were dis-
pensed forthwith. 
He challenged the order and it was quashed by the High 
Court. 
In appeal to this Court. 
HELD : Since the order of the appellant abolishing the post of Panchayati 
Raj Ekction Officer did not suffer from any infirmity, the High Court- was in 
error in quashing it; but on the abolition of that post, under r. 3.14 of 
the 
Punjab Civil Service Rules, the lien of the respondent on the po>t of Head 
Assistant stood revived. [1040 F-G] 
E 
( 1) (a) Wbethe'r a post should be retained or abolished is essentially a matter 
for the Government to decide, and as long as the decision is taken in good 
faith, it could not be set aside by the Court but, if it is found that the abolition 
was not in good faith, but was a cloak or device to terminate the services of 
an employee, then the abolition of the post may be set aside. [1037 H-1038 C] 
F 
G 
H 
M. Ramanatha Pillai v. The State of Kera/a & Anr. [1971] I S.C.R. 5·15, 
followed. 
(b) In the present case, the decision to abolish the post was taken because 
of administrative reasons. The Government re-organised the Panchayat Depart-
ment, and all those duties which had nothing to do with the· job'of Panchayati 
Raj Election Officer were given to other officers. 
The only work left with the 
Panchayati Raj Election Officer was that of conducting elections of Panchayat 
Raj Bodies, and, as this work was of a periodical nature, the appellant abolished 
that post because of financial stringency. j 1038 G-1039 C] 
(c) Whether greater economy could have been brought about by adopting 
some other course i> not for the Court to go into. The fact that some of the 
functions which were being previously performed by the respondent are now 
being performed by others, whose posts have not been abolished, would not 
show that the decision to abolish was not taken in good faith. 
In deciding which 
post to abolish, the appellant took into account the relative usefulne>s of each 
post, and as this matter was within the administrative discretion of the appellant 
and as the decision "was taken in good faith, the Court cannot interfere with 
it. [1039 C-1039 Fl 
(d) The fact that the post which was abolished was held by a person who 
i> confirmed in that post and the posts which were not abolished were held by 
persons who were not permanent would not also affect the legality of the deci-
sion to abolish the former, if the decision was taken in good faith. 
[1039 F-GJ 
- l 
• 
• 
.. 
' . 
HARYANA v. D. s. SANGAR (Khanna, !.) 
1035 
(2) Under r. 3.14(a), a competent authority shall suspend the lie!! of ~ 
Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively, 1f he is 
appointed in a substantive capacity, to a permanent post outside the cadre on 
which he was borne; and under r. 3.15, in the absence of the written request 
by the employee, the lien cannot be terminated. Under r. 3._14(e), the Govern-
ment servant's lien which has been so suspended shall revive as soon as he 
ceases to hold a lien on the ex-cadre post. In the present case, since there 'Yas 
no request by the respondent for terminating his lien. on th!? post of ~ead Assist-
ant, his lien on that post should be 1!eld to have u:i;imed1al'ely revived as soon 
as the post of Panchayati Raj Election Officer which was an ex-cadre post, 
was abolished. [1039 H-1040 CJ 
• 
T. R. Sharma v. Pritlzvi Singh & Anr. [1976] 2 S.C.R. 716, followed . 
[It was for the Government to pass_all consequential orders regar

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