DWIJENDRA DATT SAKLANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the Opposite Party directing them to treat the applicant in service of the State on terms which are not less favourable to those on which the applicant was employed by the erstwhile Tehri State.

(2.) The applicant was appointed as Sub-Divisional Officer, in charge Keertinagar and Deopra-yag Sub-Division and worked, as such from 15-1-1948, up to 31-3-1948, under the erstwhile Tehri State, On 27-6-1950, the applicant was drawing a salary of Rs. 180/-. On account of certain political changes the Tehri-Garhwal State merged in the State of U. P. The applicant continued to work in the District of Garhwal in the same grade and scale as Town Rationing Officer and was drawing a salary of Rs. 180/- per month in spite of the merger of the State in the State of Uttar Pradesh. On 24-4-1950, a communication was received by the applicant from the District Magistrate, Garhwal, intimating the inability of the State Government to absorb the applicant in the gazetted service. The petitioner accepted the grade of Rs. 160-10-240 offered in the aforesaid communication as he thought that his services may not be terminated. On 22-6-1950, the applicant received another communication from the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies (C) Department, Uttar Pradesh, through the District Magistrate, Tehri-Garhwal, to the effect that the applicant was appointed to the temporary post of Chief Food Grains Inspector in the scale of Rs. 160-5-200 per month at Fatehgarh, District Far-rukhabad. His appointment was subject to the conditions laid down in the office Memorandum No. 1237/III-614-1950, dated 14-2-1950. He was not entitled to any travelling allowance to join his post at Fatehgarh. He was further informed that he must report for duty to the District Magistrate, Farrukha-bad, immediately. Thereupon the . applicant made a representation to the District Magistrate, Tehri-Carhwal, in which he protested and asserted that he was entitled to travelling allowances and that his services should be counted from March, 1943, He, however, joined the service at Fatehgarh and continued to work there as Food Grains Inspector. Thereafter he was transferred to Allahabad as Chief Food Grains Inspector and by a letter dated 19-5-1953, from the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur Region, he was demoted to the rank of Food Grains Inspector in the scale of Rs. 85-5-160. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause against the order of demotion. The applicant was on medical leave and during that period on 18-9-1953, his services were terminated by an order from the Regional Food Controller, Kanpur. After that the petitioner made several representations and ultimately the present petition was filed.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that he was a permanent employee of the erstwhile Tehri-Garhwal State and under the merger agreement arrived at between His Highness the Maharaja of Tehri-Garhwal and the Dominion Government the Government of India guaranteed the continuance in service of the permanent members of the public services of Tehri-Garhwal on condition which was not less advantageous than those on which they are serving on 1-5-1949, or payment of reasonable compensation. After this agreement the administration of State was taken over by the Central Government under the provisions of Section 290A, Government of India Act, 1935. Thereafter the United Provinces State Merger (Governor's Province) Order, 1949, was passed and the territory of the Tehri State merged in the State of U. P. Under Section 7, Clause (1) of the Order all liabilities in respect of the guarantees given by the Central Government to the State were taken over by the State of U. P. The contention of the petitioner is that as the State Government decided to continue the employment of the petitioner, as a matter of law all the incidents and the conditions of the service in the Tehri State must attach to the new employment and it was not open to the State Government to convert his permanent employment into a temporary one. It is admitted by the opposite party that no opportunity was given to the petitioner and no charge-sheet was given to him, but the contention of the opposite party is that his employment was a temporary employment and his services could, therefore, be terminated after giving him one month's notice. Article 311 of the Constitution did not apply to the case.