UNION OF INDIA Vs. PREM PARKASH MIDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prem Prakash Midha, hereinafter called 'the respondent was recruited, as a temporary Junior Clerk in the Office of the District rent and Managing Officer, Karnal under the government of Punjab. The office was later taken over by the Union of India and the respondent became a temporary employee of the Union. The respondent was promoted as officiating Upper Division Clerk and was working in the Office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur. On 12/06/1960 the respondent applied for casual leave. He was granted only one day's leave. He applied for extension of leave but extension was not granted. The respondent did not report for duty and a notice was served requiring him to show-cause why disciplinary action should not be taken for absenting himself from duty. The respondent explained that his wife was ill and on that account he was unable to attend No disciplinary action was taken against the respondent, but in exercise of the power under the civil Servants (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949) the Regiona1 Settlement commissioner by order dated 16/07/1960 terminated the respondent's service. The respondent then instituted an action in the court of the senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal praying for a declaration that the order terminating his service under r. 5 of the Civil Services (Temporary Services) rules, 1949 was "wholly ultra vires, illegal void and ineffective" and that he must be deemed to be continued in service and for reinstatement. The trial court dismissed the suit. In appeal to the District court the decree was reserved and the suit was decreed as prayed. The High court of punjab summarily dismissed the appeal of the Union of India against the decree of the District court. With special leave, the Union of India has appealed to this court.

(2.) At all material times the respondent was in the employment of the Union of India as a temporary servant and the Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, applied to him. The learned District judge, however, held that the respondent was a "quasi-permanent" employee and his service could not be terminated without holding an enquiry. In the alternative, the District court held that even if the respondent was a temporary employee; the order of termination of employment was passed with the object of punishing the respondent and on that account also the termination of employment without complying with the requirements of Art. 311 of the Constitution was illegal. The court also held that by the order the guarantee of equal opportunity to hold public employment under Art. 16 (1) of the Constitution was infringed.

(3.) In our judgment the District Judge was in error in so holding. It is common ground that no order confirming the respondent as a quasi permanent servant was passed. The court has "held in (1) Champaklal v. Union of India that a public servant in temporary employment, by mere length of service cannot claim the status of a "quasi-permanent" employee : he may acquire that status only by an express declaration. The respondent claimed by his replication filed in the court of First instance that he was a "quasi permanent servant" and that his case fell "within the purview of Art. 311 of the Constitution. ". But apart from that assertion be led no evidence to prove that an order appointing him in a "quasipermanent" capacity was issued. He did not even make that assertion in his statement before the court of First Instance. The finding of the district Judge that the respondent ",was a "quasi-permanent" employee of the Union cannot, therefore, be sustained.