K. Gopaul v. Union of India and Others

Judgment

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2426 and 2430 of 1966. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 14, 1965 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 41 and 42 of I 965. N. S. Somasundaram. E. C. Agarwal, Champat Rai and P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant (in both the appeals). II r GOPAUL v. UNION tBhargava, J.) R. H. Dhebar for S. P. Nayyar, for respondent No. 1 (in both the appeals) . G. Ramanujam and A. V. Rangam, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (in both the appeals). The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by Bbargava, J. The appellant, K. Gopaul, was appointed to the '.11adras Registration Service as. a direct recruit and commenced his service on posting as a District Registrar in Jam,1ary, 1939. Under the latest Rules governing the Madras Registration Service, the Service consists of two Classes.

Class I has only one post in it, viz., Inspector-General of Registration. l!n Class II, there are two categories; category 1 consists of posts of Inspectors of Reg1station Offices, and category 2 of posts of District Regi~trars. Under these Rules, the appellant was promoted as Inspector- General of Registration (hereinafter referred to as "l.G.R.") in the post in Class I on 8th June, 1956, and was confirmed m that p0st by the Government Order dated 9th November, 1957, with effect from 9th June, 1956. While he was still holding this post, the post of I.G.R. was included in the cadre of the Indian Administrative Service with effect from 11th November, 1963. On 25th January, 1964, a Government Order was issued posting ou~ 0.JI. Dias of the Indian Administrative Service, who was holding a post of Deputy Secretary to Government, Revenue Department. as I.G.R., Madras, vlce the appellant.

That Government Order contained a note that orders regarding the posting of the appellant will be issued separately from the Home Department. Then, on 30<h January, 1964, a Government Order was issued posting the appellant to act temporarily as Accommodation Controller, Madras, vice one M. Sargunam. That Order further laid down that the appellant, as Accommodation Controller, will continue h> draw his grade pay in the scale of Rs. 1,200-100/2-1,400 and. in addition, he will draw a special pay Rs. 100 p~r month and ,,lsu a conveyance allowance of Rs. 75 per month if a car is maintained or Rs. 62/50P per month, if no car is maintained. On receiving this Order, the appellant moved a petition under Art. 226 o~ the Constitution in the High Court of Madras, seeking the ;iuashmg of the Order of the Government of India placing th" post of l.G.R., Madras, in the Cadre of the Indian Administratiw Service with effect from 11th November, 1963. as well as th~ Order of the Madras Government dated 30th January, 1964. transferring the appellant to the post of Accommodation Controller, Madras.

In pursuance of the Government Order made on ihe 5th January, 1964, a notification was published in the Gazette Jated 5th February, 1964. In this notification, the posting of 0. H. Dias as I.G.R., Madras, in place of the appellant, wa• uotified. In addition. it was laid down that the cadre post of Direc- SUPREME COURT llBPOllTS tor of Fisheries, Madras, was to be kept temporarily in abeyance until further orders, and, instead, sanction was accorded to the creation of a temporary post of Director of Fisheries, Madras, in the grade of a ,Deputy Secretary to Government (non-I.A.S.) for a period of six months from the date of appointment or till the need for it ceased, whichever was earlier. The notification proceeded to Jay down that M. Sargunam is posted to act as Director of Fisheries, Madras, in the newly sanctioned post.

Obviously, this posting was ordered, so that the post of Accommodation Controller, to which the appellant was transferred, should fall va(iant and should be available for the appellant to take charge of it. While the petltion before the High Court was still pending, another Order was issued by the Madras Government on the 6th June, 1964, keeping the temporary post of Accommodation Controller, Madras, which earlier existed in the cadre of Deputy Secretary (non-1.A.S.), in abeyance with effect froill 6th February, 1964 afternoon; and with effect from the same date, sanction was accorded to the creation of a temporary post of Accommodation Controller, Madras, is the scale of Rs. 1,200-100/2-1,400 for the period from 6-2-1964 to 14-4-1964 afternoon (both days inclusive). This scale of pay, it appears, was t.be scale in which the appellant was drawing his salary in the post of I.G.R. By this Order dated 6th June, 1964, it was further directed that the appellant, who was appointed as Accommodation Controller by the Order dated 30th January, 1964, should be deemed to have acted in the post sanctioned by this Order durinp; the period from 6-2-1964 afternoon to the afternoon of 14-4-1964 (both day• inclusive).

It may be mentioned that after the Order of 6th June. 1964 had been passed, the appellant moved another petition in the High· Court challenging that Order also. Both the petitions were decided by a common judgment by a single Judge of the High Court on 2nd December, 1964. The appellant then filed appeals before a Division Bench of the High Court. While these appeals were pending before the Division Bench, a letter was sent on behalf of the Government of Madras to the Counsel representing the Government in the .appeals on 27th August, 1965. In that letter, it was s'tated that, when the post of I.G.R. was included in the Indian Administrative Service Cadre of the State, the Government had decided that. in order to protect the rights of the appellant, a supernumerary post of I.G.R. in the State Service should be created with effect from 11th November, 1963, the date on which the above post was included in the Indian Administrative Service Cadre.

It was added that, in the circumstances, there would not be anv reduction in the pension and p;ratuity of the appellant consequent on the inclusion of the post of I.G.R. in the l'ndian Administrative ff GOPAUL v. UNION (Bhargava, J.) Service. It appears that, by this time, it was realised by the Government that the effect of the earlier Orders made in the case of the appellant was that the appellant was not holding lien on any permanent post and was only working on the temporary post of Accommodation Controller with the resul. that the appellant was likely to suffer in the matter of earning pension and gratuity in his service. The Bench of the High Ci'lurt hearing the appeals took notice of this letter and dismissed the appeals on the 14th October, 1965, holding that all the rights of the apprlJ.ant in respect of pension and gratuity had been protected and that there had been no removal from service or reduction in rank in the case of the appellant.

Thereupon, the appellant' sought JeaYe to appeal to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution against the commoµ order of the High Court dismissing !he two appeals arising out of the two writ petitions. Special leljve was granted and that is how these appeals have come up before us. During the pendency of these appeals, the Madras GoveJlll• rnent, on 6th October, 1966, issued a Government Order sanctioning the creation of a supernumerary post of Additional Inspector-General of Registration in the State Service in the scale of Rs. 1200-100/2-1400 with effect from 11th Nove1J1ber, 1963. Later still, on 10th February, 1967, another Order was issued, in supersession of the orders issued on 6th October, 1966, conveying the Gover~ment sanction to .the creation of a supernum7rary P?~t of f.G.R. m the State Sernce not borne on the Indran Civil Administration Cadre in the scale of Rs. 1200-100/2-1400 with effect from 11-11-1963 until such time as the appellant is confirmed in another post.

It is on these facts, which have now been placed before us, that we have to decide these appeals in. which the appellant challenges the Orders of the Government posting .him as Accommodation Controller. On behalf of the appellant, these Orders of the Gowrnment have been challenged on three grounds. The first ground urged is that, by transferring the appellant and posting him as Accommodation. Controller, he has been reduced in rank and this reduction in rank was ordered without complying with the provisions of Art 311 of the Constitution. This submission is based on the ~ircumstance that, accordinl( to Entry 13 in Ap11endix II which is referred to in subsidiary definition (ii) of Rule 9 of Part I of the Fundamental Rules of the Madras Government, the I.G.R. has been declared to be the Head of a Department, while the Accommodation Controller is not the Head of a Department.

We cannot accept the submission that the mere fact that the post of Accommodation Controller, to which the appellant has been transferred, has not been designated as the post of .a Head of the Department necessarily involves any reduction in rank. In fact. it SUPRBMB COUR.T llEPOllTS is well-known that in Government service, there may be senior posts, the holders of which are not declared as Heads of Department, while persons holding comparatively junior posts may be declared as such. The rank in Government service does not depend on the mere circumstance that the government servant, in the discharge of his duties, is given certain powers. In the case of the appellant, it is to be noticed that, from the very initial stage, it was laid down that, on being transferred to the post of the Accommodation Controller, he was still to continue to draw pay in the scale of Rs. 1,200-100/2-1,400 which was the scale m . which he was drawing his pay while working in the post of I.G.R. The appellant was, thus, not sent to a ,post carrying a lower scale of pay.

This point was further urged on the bash that the post of Accommodation Controller was held by an Officer who, on relief by the appellant, was promoted to the post created in the grade of a Deputy Secretary. to Government (non-I.AS.). From this fact it was sought to be inferred that the post of Accommodation Controller was lower in rank than the post of a Deputy Secretary to Government, and it was urged that the post of I.G.R. was of a rank higher than that of a Deputy Secretary. The argument completely fails in view of the appellant's own affidavit showing the method of recruitment to the post of I.G.R. The appellant stated that the method of recruitment for the post of I.G.R. was from two sources. One was by promotion of the Inspector of Registration Offices or District Registrars, and the other recruitment by transfer from Deputy Collectors or Assistant Secretaries to Government.

The second method of appointment to the post of I.G.R. makes it clear that this post is equated with that of a Deputy Collector or Assistant Secretary to Government because persons holding those posts can be appointed as I.G.R. by mere transfer. If the post of I.G.R. had been senior to that of the Deputy Collector or Assistant Se'cretary to Government, the appointment could not have been made to that post by mere transfer, but would necessarily have involved promotion. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that the post of I.G.R. is higher in rank than that of a Deputy Secretary is thus clearly wrong;. In fact, the post is lower in rank than that of a Deputy Secretary and. is equated with that of an Assistant Secretary. It has not even been suggested anywhere that the post of Accommodation Controller is lower in rank than that of an Assistant secretary to Government or a ·Deputy Collector.

On the other hand, the inforn1ation given to us in the course of the arguments 'bowed that, under the Rules, the Accommodation Controller works directly under the control of the· Government, while the I.G.R. is subordinate to the Board of Revenue. We, consequently, find no force at all in the plea that ibe posting of the appellant as Accommodation Controller, when he was holding the post of T.G.R. amounted to reduction in rank. 1 GOPAUL v. UNION (Bhargava, J.) The second point urged on behalf of the appellant was that, while the appellant was holding the post of I.G.R., he had a lien on a permanent post, but, when he was sent to the post of Accommodation Controller and O.H. Dias was appointed as l.G.R. after placing that post in the Cadre of the Indian Administrative Service, the appellant was left without a lien on any permanent post, and that would necessarily deprive the appellant of his rights to pension and gratuity, so that his transfer to the post of Accommodation Controller would· amount to his removal from service as a punishment.

The mere transfer to the post of Accommodation Controller did not bring into effect removal of the appellant from government service. It is, however, correct that, when the order of his tramfer was initially passed on 30th January, 1964, no provision was made for his retaining lien on any permanent post, and, if that position had been maintained, the appellant would, no doubt. have lost his rights to pension and gratuity. Under Rule 361 of the Madras Pension Code, the service of an officer doe, not qualify for pension unless it confonns to the following threie 2onditions :- First-The service must be under Government. Second.-The employment must be substantive and permanent. Third.-The service must be paid by Government. On transfer of the appellant to the post of Accommodation Controller, the first and the third conditions continued to be satisfied but the employment of the appellant in a substantive and permanent post ceased.

This second condition is further explained in Rule 368 which lays down that service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a P.ermanent establishment. It appears that the Madras Government, when transferring the appellant in order to appoint a member of the Indian Administrative Service as I.G.R. consequent on that post being included in the cadre of the Indian Administrative Service, lost sight of the fact that this transfer would involve loss of lien on a permanent post by the appellant. The subsequent orders have, however, clearly rectified this error. By the Order dated 6th June, 1964, the first step was taken of keeping the earlier existing temporary post of Accommodation Controlle·r, Madras, in abeyance with effect from 6th February, 1964, the date on which the appellant took charge of that post, and, instead, another temporary post of Acconunodation Controller, Madras, was created in the scale of pay which was applicable to the post of I.G.R. .

Later on, while the appeals were pending is the High Court, the Govern· ment sent a letter conveying their decision to create a superuume· rary post of f.G.R. in the State Service with effect from 11th November, 1963 in order to protect the rights of the appellant. '634 SUPJ.EMI COURT llBPOllTS A supernumerary post of Additional Inspector-G\lncral of Registration was in fact created by the Order dated 6th October, 1966, with effect from 11-11-1963. That Order was iater superseded by the Order dated 10th February, 1967, which conveyed Government's sanction to the creation of a supernumerary post of I.G.R. in the State Service not borne on the Indian Civil Administrati w Cadre in the scale of pay which the appellant was drawing when he was holding the post of I.G.R. which was placed in the cadre of the Indian Administrative Service.

This supernumerary post was created with effect from 11-11-1963 and it was laid down that it would exist until such time as the appellant was confirmed· in another post. The appellant was thus provided a lien on this supernumerary post of J.G.R. in the State Service. On behalf of the appellant, it was urged that the supernumerary post of I.G.R. is a temporary post, and the fact that the Government has placed his lien on this post does not protect his rights to pension. On behalf of the Government, the reply is that the supernumerary post of I.G.R. is a permanent post and not a temporary post. In Rule 9(22) of the Fundamental Rules of the Madras Government. a permanent post is defined to mean a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned wthout limit of time, while, under Rule 9(30), a temporary post is defined to mean a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited time.

The supernumerary post of I.G.R. created by the Order of the Government dated 10th February, 1967, is not for a limited time. The post has been ·created for an indefinite period and is to continue in existence as Jong as the appellant holds that post and is not confirmed in any other permanent post. This supernumerary post of I.G.R. is. thus, clearly covered by the definition of permanent post, so that the appellant now holds lien on a permanent post and, consequently, satisfies the second condition for qualifying for pension laid down in Rule 361 of the Madras Pension Code, mentioned above. There is, therefore, no force in the submission that the Orders made by the Government have resulted in any punishment being inflicted on the appellant by prejudicing his rights to pension and gratuity.

The last point urged by learned counsel was that the post of I.G.R. has been placed in the cadre of the Indian Administrative Service in the State of Madras only and in no other State and, as a consequence, the appellant lost his appointment to that post due to the unequal treatment mete4 out by. t~e Government of India. Under Rule 4 (1) of the Indian Admmtstrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, framed under t~«'. All India Services Act 61 of 1951, the strength and compos1tton of the Cadre of the Indian Administrative Service constituted for a State are to be detennined by regulations made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concern- GOPAUL v. UNION (Bhargava., J.) ed. Rule 4(2) lays down that the Central Government shall, at the interval of every three years, re-examine the strength and composition of each such cadre in consultation with the State 'Government concerned.

It was as a result of re-examination in the year 1963 that the Central Government declared the post of I.G.R. as well as a number of other posts as cadre posts 8 of the Indian Administrative Service in consultation with the Madras Govenunent. When such re-examination takes place, the circumstances and conditions existing in a particular State have to be taken into account. It is not necessary that similar posts in all States in India must all be placed in the same cadre. Depending on the conditions brought to the notice of the Central Government, the Government may consider it desirable that a particular post in c:me State should be placed on the Cadre of the Indian Administrative Service, whereas, in another State, it may not be considered advisable to do so. On behalf of the appellant, Volume II of the Hand Book of Rules and Regulations for the All India Services was brought to our notice.

The edition corrected up to 1st September, 1962 showed the posts fn the various States placed on the Cadre of the Indian Administrative Service. These Rules certainly do not show that the post of I.G.R. is any State was in the cadre of the Indian Administrative Service in that year; but. a comparison of the various lists shows that there are some posts which, in some of the States, are borne on the Cadre of the Indian Administrative Service, where as they are not included in that Cadre in other States. Clearly, there can be no uniformity between different States .in the matter of . determining the strength and the . composition of the Cadre of the Indian Administrative Service in all the States. The submission that we should bold the order of the Union Government as void on the ground of discrimination between different States bas, therefore, no force and must be r rejected.

The appeal, consequently, fails and is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, we direct parties to bear their own costs. R.K.P.S. Appeal dismissed.