STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus BALBIR SINGH ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 06-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
11 s 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
v. 
BALBIR SINGH ETC. ETC. 
October 6, 1975 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI. P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWAL!A, JJ.] 
Art. 311 (2) of the Co11stit11tion-Ciri/ Servicc-Re\'ersion to subs!antil'e 
posts not by way of p1111is/ime11t-P11nja/J Service of E11gineers (Clas~ II) Rules 
1965-Punjab Service of Engineers, Building & Roads Branch (Recrrtment and 
Conditions of Serrice) Rule 1942-Puniab Reorgm1is'!tio11 Act 1966--Secs. 2, 
2(5), 82, 83, 88-Continuance of laws and admil!ist~attve orders .<ff~r r_eorgam-
sation-Distinction between adjust111ent of temtories by reorganisa11on and 
change of sovereignty by succession. conquest, merger 
or 
ll'}tegratilm-A11 
administrative order beco111cs effective 1\'lien made or when cfi11111111111cated-
Ref1111d of remuneration received by a Govt. employee losing writ 
petition 
ultimately. 
The respondents in the "bove 13 nppea.Js by Special Leave alongwith 2 oth_ers 
fileJ 15 Writ Petitions in the High Cou.rt of Punjab and Haryana, challengrng 
the order dated 28-10-1966 made by the Government of the erstwhile undivideJ 
Sta:e of Punjab reverting the respondents to their substantive ranks. 
The 
respondents were promoted and appointed as S.D.Os. on officiating basis in the 
Punj;i,b Public Works Department on the various dates between the 1st March. 
1956 and 10th May, 1963. 
The erstwhile State of Punjab was reorgani·scd by 
the P.unjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. 
On lst November, 1966, the former State 
of Punjab ·ceased to exist and the successor States of Punjab, Haryana, Union 
territory of Chandiga,rh and the transferred territory came into being. According 
to :;ection 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act every person who immediately 
hefore the appointed day wa·.i serving in connection with the affairs of the 
existing State of Punjab would on and from that day provisionally continue 
to 'erve in connection with the affairs of the State of Punja,b enless he is required 
by general or special order of the Central Government to ser.ve provisionally 
in connection with the affairs of any other sticcessor State. 
Section R3 provides 
that every person who immediately before the appointed day is holding or 
discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of 
the ex[sting St:rte of Punjab in any area which 011 .that day falls within any_ 
of the successor States sball continue to .ho!J the same post or offke in that 
'uccessor State and shall be deemed on ·and from that day to have heen duly 
:•rpointed to the post or office by the. Government or other appropriate authority 
m the successor State. 
Sec. 88 provides that the law applic:cb!e in the territorv 
will 
continue 
to 
apply 
after reorganisation 
unless 
otherwise providecl 
hr a competent legislature. 
Section 2 (g) of the Act defines law as includinQ 
any enactment, ordinance. regtilation, order, bye-law. mle, scheme, notificatiol1 
or other instrument. having the for:c of law. 
The impugned orders of rever-
sion were communicated to the respondents after !st N'ovcmber, 1966. 
The 
orJers were passed by the Government in conrultation with the Punjnb Public 
Service Commission· before lst November, 1966. 
The Chief Engineer sent 
th~ said orders on 30-10-1966. 
Th.e orders were however received after 1st 
November. 1966 . 
Before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. the respondents c
0
ontended 
that they were governe? by the Punjab. :>ervice of Engineers, Buildings and 
Roads Branch 
(Recnutment and Cond1t10ns of Service) Rules 1942 under 
which they became automatically confirmed as members of the service and 
could not be reverted without complying with the provisions of Article 311 
of the Constitu.tion. 
The learneJ Single Judge· allowed the Writ Petitions 011 
that ground. 
On nn apr;ea! before the Division Bench by the appellants. the Divhion 
Bench divided the respondents into three 
categories; (1) those 
who were 
promoted after 1942 Rules were repealed: 
(2) 
these who were promoted 
within 3 years preceding the repeal of 1942 Rules: and (3) those who were 
B. 
c 
() 
F 
G 
A 
c 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 2 S.C.R. 
promoted more than three yea,rs prior to &uch repeal. 
In the case of first 
category, the High Court held that the 1942 Rules did not apply. 
In the case 
of the ·second category the Division Bench held that they were not entitled to 
get the benefits of 1942 Rules since they had not completed the period of 3 
years probation to acquire

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