STATE OF SIKKIM Vs. SURENDRA PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question arises in these appeals by special leave bearing on the true scope and meaning of Rule 4(4) of the Sikkim Government Establishment Rules, 1974, (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), which were in force before Sikkim became a part of the territory of India. The relevant part of the said Rule with which we are concerned reads as follows:

(2.) Pursuant to an agreement reached between the Chogyal of Sikkim and leaders of the political parties representing the people of Sikkim on the one hand and the Govt. of India on the other, the Sikkim Assembly unanimously passed the Government of Sikkim Bill, 1974, which was duly promulgated by the Chogyal on 4-7-1974 as the Government of Sikkim Act, 1974. By this Act the Government of Sikkim was empowered to take steps for seeking representation of the people of Sikkim in India's Parliamentary system. A formal request to this effect was made to the Government of India which gave effect to the Will of the people of Sikkim by amending the Constitution of India. By the Constitution 35th Amendment Act, 1974, Art. 2A was inserted in the Constitution which ran as under:

(3.) We may now briefly outline the undisputed factual matrix. After Sikkim became the 22nd State of the Union of India, the Directorate of Survey and Settlement of the Government of Sikkim created and advertised certain posts and invited applications for filling up the said temporary posts. The respondents in this group of appeals applied for the posts and were appointed in different capacities in 1976. As and when the survey work was completed the surplus employees were relieved of their jobs in 1980, 1981 and 1982. In 1982 some of the surplus employees who were 'non-locals' filed writ petitions in the High Court of Sikkim challenging the Government's decision terminating their services. A learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment and order dated 29-2-1984 allowed the writ petitions and quashed the termination orders. It is against the view taken by the learned single Judge that the present appeals have been preferred.