UNION OF INDIA Vs. AGYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for decision in this appeal brought on a certificate of fitness granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is, whether respondent Agya Ram, a permanent employee of the Punjab Government, who held a temporary appointment as Settlement Officer in the office of the Regional Settlement Officer, Jullundur, under the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply (Department of Rehabilitation). Government of India, was entitled to 15 days' notice before he was asked to go back to his parent department. The respondent was employed as Superintendent, Land Claims Organisation of the Rehabilitation Department of the Punjab Government at Jullundur when he was selected for appointment as Assistant Settlement Officer in the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, in a temporary capacity on the terms and conditions set out in a letter dated January 14, 1955 addressed by an Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, to the Under-Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, Jullundur. One of the terms was:

(2.) The respondent then instituted a suit in the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Jullundur, for a declaration that the order reverting him to his parent department was illegal and void, and for a decree for arrears of pay and allowances. The trial court decreed the suit declaring that the order reverting the respondent from the post of Settlement Officer was illegal and ineffective and that the respondent continued to hold the post of Settlement Officer. The trial court found that the respondent was a direct recruit to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer by selection, not a transferee from the Directorate of Land Records. Punjab, as contended on behalf of the Union of India, and there was no 'parent department' to which the respondent could be sent back. It was held that the order of reversion was really an order terminating the services of the respondent which was void in the absence of a prior notice in accordance with the terms of appointment. The court also passed a decree for Rs. 2700/- as arrears of pay and allowances.

(3.) The Union of India preferred an appeal against the decision of the trial court which was partly allowed. The Additional District Judge, Jullundur, who heard the appeal held that the order reverting the respondent to his parent department had been made in accordance with his terms of service, and was therefore valid, but as one of the terms, which we have quoted above, provided that the respondent's services might be terminated only after giving him "notice for a period of not less than 15 days", and as no such notice was admittedly given, he was entitled to his pay for these 15 days. The Additional District Judge disposed of the appeal accordingly giving the respondent a decree for Rs. 312.50 P. The respondent preferred a second appeal to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana questioning the correctness of this decision and a learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and restored those of the trial court. The learned Judge was of opinion that in the absence of anything in the conditions of service to suggest that pay in lieu of notice would satisfy the requirement of serving 15 days' clear notice on the respondent before his services could be terminated, the order of reversion was illegal and void. It, was observed that the view taken found support from two decisions of the Punjab and Haryana Court, one of them was. Mohan Singh Malhi v. State of Punjab, 1968 Serv LR (SN) 881 (Punj and Har). A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed in limine the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the Union of India from the judgment of the single Judge but granted a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. This is how this appeal is before us.