9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the abolition of the post of Panchayati Raj Election Officer and the consequent termination of the respondent's services was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the respondent's lien on the post of Head Assistant revived upon the abolition of the post of Panchayati Raj Election Officer under rule 3.14 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Arbitrariness and Violation of Articles 14 and 16: The respondent contended that the order dated July 13, 1972, abolishing the post of Planning-cum-Panchayati Raj Election Officer and terminating his services was arbitrary and lacked a reasonable nexus with the objective of addressing financial stringency. He argued that the order violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it resulted in his dismissal while retaining less meritorious and junior employees. The State of Haryana maintained that it had the right to decide which posts to abolish for economic reasons and that the court should not interfere with such administrative decisions. The Supreme Court held that the decision to retain or abolish a post is a matter for the Government to decide, provided it is taken in good faith. The court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Government. The decision should not be a pretext to terminate an employee's services. The court found that the abolition of the post was due to administrative reasons and financial stringency, as supported by affidavits from the Haryana Government. The Government's decision was taken in good faith and aimed at streamlining the department. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in quashing the Government's order abolishing the post of Panchayati Raj Election Officer. 2. Revival of Lien on the Post of Head Assistant: The respondent argued that under rule 3.14 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, his lien on the post of Head Assistant should revive upon the abolition of the post of Panchayati Raj Election Officer. The State of Haryana contended that the respondent's lien on the post of Head Assistant had been terminated when he was confirmed as Planning-cum-Panchayati Raj Election Officer. The Supreme Court referred to rule 3.14 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which states that a Government servant's lien on a permanent post is suspended if appointed to a permanent post outside the cadre. The lien revives once the Government servant ceases to hold the lien on the new post. The court cited its previous judgment in T. R. Sharma v. Prithvi Singh & Anr., which held that a lien cannot be terminated without a written request from the employee. Since there was no such request from the respondent, his lien on the post of Head Assistant revived upon the abolition of the post of Panchayati Raj Election Officer. The Supreme Court directed the authorities to take necessary consequential steps in accordance with the rules due to the revival of the respondent's lien on the post of Head Assistant. The court also acknowledged the respondent's option to take compensation pension under rule 5.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II and left the decision regarding salary refund during the appeal's pendency to the Government. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It upheld the Government's order abolishing the post of Panchayati Raj Election Officer and recognized the revival of the respondent's lien on the post of Head Assistant. The parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout.
|
