U.P GRAM PANCHAYAT ADHIKARI SANGH AND ORS. versus DAYA RAM SAROJ AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 581 · Decided: 11-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

U.P. GRAM PANCHA Y AT ADHIKARI SANGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
DAY A RAM SAROJ AND ORS. 
DECEMBER l l, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Articles 37, 40 and 243G-Constitution (Seventy-
third Amendment) Act, 1992-UP. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947-Sections 2(mm), 
B 
25, 25A & 34-,-Transfer of employees from State Departments to Gram C 
Panchayats after amendemtn to State Act,-High Court dismissing Writ 
Petitions challenging the transfer holding that the employees are transferred 
only on deputation and that their services continue to remain with Parent 
Departments-State later ordered repartriation of some employees to their 
Parent Departments-Writ Petitions challenging repatriations were dismissed 
by High Court holding the earlier view-High Court, in another repatriation D 
proceeding, held a contrary view Correctness of-Held, the principles of 
natural justice not followed by High Court before setting aside order of 
repatriation~Constitution (SeventY-third Amendment) Act, 1992 is not a 
basic feature of the Constitution and hence the amendment to the State Act 
does not violate basic structure of the Constitution-Employees are sent on E 
deputation to Gram Panchayat and they continue to have lien with patent 
Departments under the State Act- Hence, order of repatriation upheld 
State Government brought an amendment to U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 
194.7 with new sections 25 and 25-A and transferred employees from some 
State Departments to Gram Panchayats (GPs) and re-designated them as Gram p 
Panchayat Evam Vikas Adhikaris (GPV As). Writ Petitions fi!ed before High 
Court challenging the amendment to the Act and !_he subsequent transfers 
were dismissed. The High Court held that the employees continue to remain 
with their Parent Departments and are governed by their original service 
Rules; and that they are only on deputation to GPs. 
The State Government later ordered repatriation of some of the 
employees back to the Parent Departments. Writ Petition challenging the 
repatriation before the High Court was dismissed on the same view as held 
earlier. A Special Leave Petition filed before this Court was also dismissed. 
581 
G 
H 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. IO S.C.R. 
A 
The State, thereafter, ordered repatriation of tube-well operators and 
part-time tube-well operators to theirs Parent Departments. Writ Petitions 
were filed before the High Court challenging this repatriation also. The High 
Court allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the order of repartraion on 
the ground that the facts are different in here. The High Court, further, held 
B that the tube-well operators and part-time tube-well operators are inextricably 
connected with the cadre of GVP As; and that the part-time tube-well operators 
shall be treated as permanent employees. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants, who supported repatriation to 
their Parent Department, contended that they were not parties before the High 
C Court and hence the High Court has erred in setting aside the order of 
repatriation without following the principles of natural justice. 
The respondents-writ-petitioners, who opposed repatriation, contended 
that they were transferred as a consequence of transfer of Governmental 
functions to GPs by law as part of the Constitutional Scheme of devolution of 
D powers as a permanent measure in order to enable them to function as units 
of self-government; that such devolution of powers by law is irreversible which 
cannot by undone either directly or indirectly by the Executive; that their 
transfer from Parent Department to the Gps was lock; stock and barrel and 
therefore; it is a complete and permanent transfer; that under section 34 of 
the Act; the property viz. the tube-wells were vested in the Gps and hence 
E their transfer back to parent Department is impermissible; that they were 
not transferred on deputation; that reading sections 25 (a) and 25 (6) of the 
Act conjunctively; the State is empowered to transfer an employee only from 
one District/Panchayat to another District/ Panchayat and hence is 
incompetent to transfer them back to the parent Department. 
F 
Disposing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Judicial discipline is self-discipline. It is an inbuilt mechanism 
in the system itself. Judicial discipline demands that when the decision of a 
co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court is brought to the notice of the 
G Bench, it is respected and is binding, subject to t

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