9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reversion orders dated October 28, 1966. 2. Applicability of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Buildings and Roads Branch (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1942. 3. Compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 4. Effect of the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 on the reversion orders. 5. Communication and effectiveness of the reversion orders. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reversion Orders Dated October 28, 1966: The appellants, the State of Punjab and Union of India, challenged the High Court's decision that had set aside the reversion orders of certain government servants. The Supreme Court held that the reversion orders were valid. The High Court had misinterpreted the applicability of the 1942 Rules and the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The reversion orders were not punitive but administrative in nature and thus did not require compliance with Article 311(2). 2. Applicability of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Buildings and Roads Branch (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1942: The respondents argued that they were governed by the 1942 Rules and had become automatically confirmed in their posts. The Supreme Court, agreeing with the Division Bench of the High Court, concluded that the 1942 Rules did not apply to the respondents as they were not Assistant Executive Engineers. The respondents were governed by the 1960 Rules and the Class II 1965 Rules, which required the approval of the Public Service Commission for their appointments. Since the Commission did not find them suitable, they were rightly reverted. 3. Compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India: The respondents claimed that their reversion without following the due process under Article 311(2) was illegal. The Supreme Court, citing the decision in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, held that the reversion was not by way of punishment and thus did not attract Article 311(2). The High Court's conclusion that the reversion was not punitive was upheld. 4. Effect of the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 on the Reversion Orders: The High Court had held that the reversion orders were ineffective as they were communicated after the re-organization of the State of Punjab on November 1, 1966. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrative orders of the erstwhile State of Punjab continued to be effective in the successor States until modified or repudiated. The Court emphasized that the re-organization did not automatically nullify administrative orders. 5. Communication and Effectiveness of the Reversion Orders: The High Court had found the reversion orders ineffective because they were communicated to the respondents after November 1, 1966. The Supreme Court, however, held that the orders were communicated on October 30, 1966, when they were sent out of the control of the issuing authority. The orders were thus effective before the re-organization date. The Court applied the principle that once an order is issued and sent out, it is considered communicated, regardless of when it is actually received. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments and orders of the High Court, both of the single Judge and the Division Bench. The reversion orders dated October 28, 1966, were held valid. The Court directed that the government should not claim any refund of the salary paid to the respondents up to the date of the judgment. Civil Appeal No. 521/1970 was dismissed as abated due to the death of the respondent, and Civil Appeal No. 519/1970 was dismissed as infructuous since the respondent was no longer in service. There was no order as to costs in any of the appeals.
|
