CHANDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal brought against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, dated 22 -7 -68 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 12760 65 based on the ground that the order of his reversion dated 28 -12 -61 was unconstitutional having been passed in contravention of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

(2.) THE plaintiff who was in the Judicial Service of the former Jodhpur State came to be appointed as a Senior Civil and Additional Sessions Judge in the State of Rajasthan after it was formed. By order Ex. A/1 dated 25 -1 -68 he was while working as Civil and Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, appointed as officiating District and Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. By the impugned order Ex A/2 he was reverted and posted as Civil and Additional Sessional Judge, Dholpur. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the order of his reversion on the ground that it was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice in as much as he was not afforded any opportunity to show cause against it vide Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The plaintiff averred that due to his reversion he had been deprived of the higher emoluments as well as of the higher grade, attached to the cadre of District and Sessions Judges namely, Rs. 800.50.1000.50.1800; his salary as District Judge being Rs. 950/ - According to the plaintiff, the order of reversion was bad also for the reason that persons junior to him in the cadre of Civil and Additional Sessions Judges were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on the plaintiff's reversion. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 12760.65 arrears of salary being the difference between the emoluments that were allowed to him as Civil and Additional Sessions Judge on his reversion and what he would have drawn as District and Sessions Judge, if he were not reverted.

(3.) A number of issues were framed by the learned Additional District Judge, but the main issue was whether the plaintiff's reversion from the post of the officiating District and Sessions Judge to his substantive post of Civil and Additional Sessions Judge was in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution. The defendant placed of record the inspection note made by the then Chief Justice Shri Sarjoo Prasad on 4 -9 61 (Ex A/(SIC), the minute recorded by Shri J.S. Ranwat who succeeded Shri Sarjoo Prasad (Ex A/4), the order appointing the plaintiff as officiating District and Sessions Judge, Ganganagar (Ex A/1) and the impugned order of the plaintiff's reversion dated 28.12 61 (Ex. A/2). On perusal of these documents the learned Additional District Judge observed that it was quite clear that the plaintiff was given a chance to officiate as District and Sessions Judge at Ganganagar, but it was found that he did not give a good account of the opportunity afforded to him and he had proved himself unfit to bear the responsibility of the Office of the District and Sessions Judge and it was for this reason that the plaintiff was reverted to his substantive post of a Civil and Additional Sessions Judge In the light of these documents the learned Additional District Judge then considered the question whether the impugned order can be said to have been passed in contravention of Article 311(2) of the Constitution The learned Judge referred to a number of cases, such as, P.L Dhingra v. Union of India : (1958)ILLJ544SC , State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushiliya : [1964]4SCR1002 , State of Bombay v. F.A. Abraham : (1963)IILLJ422SC , Ishwar Chandra v. State : (1966)IILLJ105Ori and Bhartendra Nath v. I.T. Commissioner West Bengal : AIR1958Cal559 , and came to the conclusion that Article 311 was not contravened in the present case and consequently the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The learned Additional District Judge also observed that as the plaintiff had not sought the relief of declaration about the invalidity of the impugned order but had only claimed the relief of arrears of salary, no such relief regarding arrears of salary could be allowed to him for that additional reason as well. In the result, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit and left the parties to bear their own costs.