RATTAN LAL GULATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RATTAN LAL GULATI
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
Bhandari, C.J. -
(1.) This appeal raises the question whether a permanent Government servant, who is holding a temporary post in a substantive capacity, can be transferred to a post carrying a lesser pay without being afforded a reasonable opportunity or showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him.
(2.) One Rattan Lal Gulati is the plaintiff in this case. He entered service as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner at Lahore in the year 1930 and was confirmed in his appointment in the year 1934. In September 1943, when he was drawing a salary of Rs. 48/- per mensem his services were placed at the disposal of the Directorate General of Industries and Supplies in the Government of India and he commenced drawing a sallary of Rs. 48/- per mensem plus as officiating allowance of Rs. 32/- per mensem. On 4-8-1944 he was appointed to a temporary post of Assistant in the scale of Rs. 200-15-500/- and on 7-10-1946 he was transferred on the same salary to another temporary post of Assistant in the Education Department, He assumed charge of his duties on 10-10-46 and was appointed to the said ppst in a substantive capacity with effect from 13-1-1947. His lien on the post of Junior Clerk in the Deputy Commissioner's office at Lahore was transferred to the Deputy Commissioner's office at Amritsar in the month of August 1950. On 18-11-1950 when he was drawing a salary of Rs. 290/- per mensem he was directed to report himself immediately for duty to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. He asked for and was granted leave for a pefiod of four months with effect from 11-12-1950. He was due to join his substantive post in Amritsar on the expiry of his leave but he declined to do so and on 12-4-1951 he brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for a declaration that the order reverting him from the post of an Assistant to that of a Junior Clerk was void and of no effect as he was reduced in rank without being informed of the grounds on which it was proposed to take action and without being afforded a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. The trial Court granted the decree prayed for but the learned District Judge came to a contrary conclusion and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has come to this Court in second appeal and the question for this Court is whether the District Judge has come to a correct determination in point of law.
(3.) The plaintiff has argued this case on his own behalf while Mr. Bishambar Dayal has argued it on behalf of the Union of India.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.