STATE OF MYSORE versus M. H. BELLARY

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 25-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

7 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
471 
STATE OF MYSORE 
v. 
M. H. BELLARY 
IP. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR. C.J .• K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.J 
Bombay Civil Service Rules-Government Servant of one 
department sent on deputation to another department-On re-
version entitled to the promotions based on merit-cum seniority 
basis in the parent department-Breach of Statutory Rule 
under Art. 309 gives rise to cause of action-Constituticn of 
India, Art. 309, 313-Bombay Civil Service Rules, R. 50(b). 
The respondent was a Government servant in one of the 
departments of the Bombay Go\'ernment. He was sent on 
, ~eoutation to another department and after serving there for 
a long period and getting a number of promotions he was re-
verted back to his parent department and ordered to be posted 
at. > considerably lower grade, 
while 
another 
Government 
servant who was below his rank was promot·ed as Assistant 
Secretary. Thereupon the respondent file".! a petition under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of his post-
ing. A preliminary objection was raised by the appellant that 
the petition was not maintainable. But the High Court held 
that the respondent was entitled to invoke the jurisdiction 
of the Court when there is a violation of a statutory rule and 
on merits it held that the respondent was entitled to the re-
lief claimed. The present appeal was filed on a certificate 
granted by the High Court under Art. 133 of the Constitution. 
Before this Court in view of the decision State of UP. v. 
Babu Ram Upadhya. [1961] 2 S.C.R. 679 it was not disputed 
that if there was a breach of a statutory rule framed under 
Art. 309 or continued under Art. 313 in relation to the condi-
tion of service the aggrieved GoV'ernment servant could have 
recourse to the Court. 
The main contention on behalf of the appellant was that 
the respondent was not entitled to be appointed to any 
higher post than as a Senior Assistant or to receive a salary 
·higher than that which had been granted to him bv the im-
pugned order. 
· 
Held: (i) Assuming that this was a case where the respon-
dent had a lien and his lien had not been suspended it was 
not possible to interpret Rule 50(b) of the Bombay Civil Ser-
vice Rules as providing different criteria to cases where a 
Government servant had a lien and where his lien has been 
suspended. 
The Rule and the circular make it abundantly clear that 
an officer on deputation in another department shall be re-
stored to the position he would have occupied in his parent 
department had he not been deputed. 
(ii\. Where promotions are based on seniority-cum-merit 
basis an officer on deputation has a legal right to claim pro-
motion to a higher post in his parent department provided his 
service in the department to which he is lent is satisfactory. 
This may not be the case in regard to selection posts. 
1964 
March25 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964) 
1964 
State of My801't 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 677 
of 1963. Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 
31, 1961 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 283 
of 1959. 
v. 
M.H. Bellary 
B. R. L. Iyengar and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appel-
lant 
S. V. Venkataranga Iyengar, M. Rama Jois and A. G. 
Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent. 
March 25, 1964. The judgment of the· Court was 
delivered by 
.AyyafllJM, 
J. 
AYYANGAR, J.-A very short question regarding the pro-
per construction of Rule 50(b) of the Bombay Civil Services 
Ruks is involved in this appeal which comes before us by 
a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Mysore 
und~r Art. 133 of the Constitution. 
' 
The facts giving rise to this appeal which are necessary 
to be narrated to appreciate the only point urged before us 
weri: these: The resporn;lent was recruited as an Upper 
Division Clerk by the Government of Bombay ,in .1931 and 
was later appointed substantively as a Junior Assistant in 
the Political Department. While so, on September 17, .1943 
his services were transferred on deputation to the office of 
the Controller of Rationing,. Bombay to work as a Senior 
Assistant in the newly started Rationing department which 
was a temporary department. He obtained successive promo-
tions in this department and by March, 1954 he was draw-
ing a pay of Rs. 460/- p.m. in the grade Rs. 350-30-650 as 
Rationing Officer. That department was abolished in March, 
1954 and thereafter he was reverted 

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