UNION OF INDIA versus GURBAKSH SINGH & ANOTIIER

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 05-02-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

444 
UNION OF INDIA 
V. 
GURBA.KSH SINGH & ANOTIIER 
February 5, 1975 
[K. K. MATHEW, P. N. BHAGWATI, 
AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ] 
Displaced Pcrsoris (.Compe11sa1ion a11d R~lwbilitai/on) A.ct, 1954 and Ge11ernl 
Clause& Act (IO of 1891) S. 16, and Const/1111/on of India 1950, Art. 310(1)-
l'ost of Asstt. Commissioner tmder 195-4 Act-Whether services of lnwmlm1: 
cordd b~ tmn/11at~d by State Goi•ernmmt. 
Under s. 3( l) of lhe Di11placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) 
Act, 195,, tho post of Assistant. Settlement Commissioner i~ a post und,1:r th~ 
Union of India to which the appointment is to be made by the Central G1ivern · 
nwnt. 
In exercise of this power the Central Government appointed the first rc1;ponJ-
cnt ro the po3t by order dated 3rd September, 1955. Since the post was emailed 
by tho President of India only for a period of 6 months the san~tion for lh·1~ po•I 
came to llll end on 29th February 1956. The first respondent, however, conti-
nued to function on the basis of sanction to il~ continuance given by th~ Siak 
Government. Thereafter, by an order dated 17th April, 1956, the State Govern-
ment purported to terminate the services of the first respondent with immediate 
effect. After some correspondence, on February 18, 1959, the Central Govern-
ment issued a memorandum that on the expiry of the period of one month given 
in the earlier memorandum of January 18, 1959 his services stood krmcnated 
with effect from February 18, 1959. The respondent filed a suit against the 
Central and the State Governmeal' contending that both their orders terminat-
ing bis serviceR were illegal and invalid and for recovery of arrears o[ salary 
and allowances. The trial con:t dismissed the suit. Iu appeal to the High 
Court, he contended that his se.n•ice was validly terminated only by the memo-
randum dated !8th January 1959, is:<ued by the Central Government, am! th .. 1 
he was therefore entitled to arrears of salary and allowances upto 18th Fcbn1 
ary, 1959. This contention was accepted by the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court. 
HELD : The Central Government alone could terminate the appointment 
both as the appointing authority us :1lso under Art. 310( I) of the Constitution. 
[451 HJ 
:\ 
B 
D 
(a) Tho Stat'~ Government had no power to make the appointment t1.l Ilic 
F 
ria&t unles.q such power wa~ conferred upon it by virtue of a direction given 
by the Central Government under s. 34, but there W!!S no such direction in the 
present case. The Central Government ool:i empowered the State Government 
to nominat" the persoti to be npoointed 'to th~ post bat the appoinlme1:t of th~ 
rierson so nomi.nated could only be made and, in fact, was made by th~ C(·ntn1l 
Government by its order dated 3rd fieptcmber, 195S. [450 D•Fl 
(b) Tho State Government's order date<! !st December, 1955 purporting to 
appoint tho first t'C!IPOndcnt was roe~ly a forn1al nppolntmeut letter pursuunit to 
(; 
tho suggestion of the Central Government. 
It had no legal consequence r.incc 
hy that ti.roe the first r~pondent was already appointed to the post. (450 Gl 
(c) Moreover. the post was sanctioned by the President of India and cm1tecl 
h) the Central Government and the whole of the expenditure in connection with 
it was to be borne out of funds allocated by the Central Government. 
Th~ 
State Government's order pnrporting to acoord sanction to the creation of ;he 
post was only for the purpose of reg'Jfarising its mm accounlq procednre in 
di,bursing the amount allocated by the C.cntral Government. [450 H-451 BJ 
H 
(d) When the questiocr regarding the issne of pay slip in favour of the 
li.fst respondent for the pc•riod subsequent to 29th February, 195fi, arose, 
th~ 
;\ccountant General of !~ State pointed out that the sanction to the continuance 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
UNION v. GURBAKSH SINGH (Bhagwati, !.) 
H5 
?f the post aiven by the State Government was. meaningless and ineffective and 
ii could not be acted upon until receipt ot sanction to its continuancy from the 
Central Government. [451 C-D) 
Therefore, the Central Government, which was the appointing authority 
could terminate the service of the first respondent under s. 16 General Clause~ 
Act, 1897. [451 G] 
-
' 
' 
(e) There is no provision under which the State Government could h~ve the 
power to determine the appointment as Assistant Settlement Commlss10ner made 
by the Central Government under s. 3. The person appointed would hold the 
post durina 

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