STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. versus EX. PILOT OFFICER ARUN GOVIL

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 21-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF· U1TAR PRADESH AND ORS. 
v. 
EX. PILOT OFFICER ARUN GOVIL 
NOVEMBER 21, 1989 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, C.J., K.N. SINGH AND 
N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Service Law-Appointment in the nature of contract and f<Ir a 
specified period-Termination of service before the expiry of specified 
period-Validity of-Appointee:__Whether has a right to continue 
beyond the specified term of appointment. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226--Wril petition-Interim 
order by High Court-Effect of-Whether controls jNrisdiction of-the 
High Court to dispose the writ petition on merits. 
Pursuant to a scheme enacted for the benefit of ex-military 
officials the appellant-State appointed the respondent on 20.8.1979 as 
Sttretary Zila Sainii< Board on contract basis for a specif"led period 
which was further extended upto 30.8.1985. On 29.3.1985 the services 
of the respondent were terminated. 
The respondent filed a writ petition ·before the High Court chal-
lenging the termination order. By an order dated 24.3.1988 tlie High 
Court set aside the termination order holding that the respondent was 
entitled to salary upto the period he was entitled to remain in service i.e. 
upto 30.8.1985. 
The respondent preferred a Review Petition ""fore (he High 
Court contending that pursuant to the interim order. dated 10. 7 .1986 
passed by the High Court he was entitled to be reinstated in service even 
though there was no order of extension of service. By an •order dated 
26. 7 .19A8, the High Court allowed the Review Petitio~ dirttting the 
appellant State to reinstate the respondent in service. Heiice this appeal 
by the State. 
Allowing. the appeal and setting aside the order passed on Review, 
this Court, 
HELD: 1. Io the instant case, the appointment of the respondent 
was indisputably in the nature of contract and under the order of 
appointment be was entitled to continue in office in the post in question 
till 30th of August, 1985 and not beyond that date unless there was a 
further extension. Since no order of extension had been sanctioned by 
239 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
the Governor beyond 30th Au_gust, 1985 the respondent was entitled to 
the salary and allowances due to him till 30th of August, 1985 if tne order 
of termination of service was found to he an invalid one. [242B; 244C I 
1.1 The High Court was right in disposing of the Writ Petition on 
24.3.1988 declaring that the respondent was entitled to salary upto the 
period he was entitled to remain in service, i.e. 30th August, 1985. But 
it was not right in making an order on Review on 26.7.1988 rely-
ing upon the interim order dated 10.7.1986 which in the circums-
tances could not have the effect of controlling the jurisdiction of the 
High Courl to dispose of the Writ Pettion on merits as it did on 
24.3.1988. 1245A-B] 
2. The interim order passed by the High Court did not and could 
not amount to a direction that the respondent was entitled to be rein-
stated in service irrespective of the merits of the case and the extent of 
his right. The order passed on review is wholly unsustainable. [245C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4649 
of 1989. 
.From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.1988 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Review Application No. 27(W) of 1988. 
Anil Dev Singh and Mrs. S. Dikshit for the Ap~llants. 
Yogeshwar Prasad, Vijay Hansaria, Sunil K. Jain, S.K. Jain for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKATARAMIAH, CJ. The Respondent, Arnn Govil had 
been granted a permanent commission in the Indian Air Force and was 
F 
working as a Pilot Officer. In the year 1972 he was declared unfit by a 
Medical Board and was, therefore, invalidated from I.A.F. The 
Government of India issued a scheme for the benefit of ex-military 
officials. The State of Uttar Pradesh also adopted the same scheme. 
Under that scheme the ex-military officials were appointed on 
Contract basis for a fixed term which could be extended from time to 
G 
time subject to the suitability of the official concerned but not beyond 
58 years of age. Pursuant to the said scheme the State of Uttar Pradesh 
appointed the respondent as the Secretary, Zila Sainik Board, Unnao 
on 20th of Auguat, 1979. Paragraph 2 of the said order of appointment 
issued on 20th August, 1979 reads thus: 
H 
"The appointment shall be on contract for a period of one 
STATE OF U.P. v. ARUN GOVIL (VENKATARAMIAH, CJ.] 
241
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.