Decided on September 20,1954

LT.GOVERNOR Respondents


Ramabhadran, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Articles 226/311 of the Constitution. It has been made with the following allegations: The petitioner was appointed in July 1946 as an engineer in the erstwhile Bilas-pur State on a salary of Rs. 350/- p. m. and was confirmed in that capacity on 15-3-1947 when his pay was increased to Rs. 400/p. m. On 15-8-1948, Bilaspur State was merged into the Indian Dominion. The petitioner's designation was altered to Divisional Engineer and he was permitted to draw the salary he was then receiving. From March 1949 to April, 1950, petitioner worked as Divisional Engineer of Bilaspur State. On 25-5-1950, the petitioner received orders posting him as S. D. O., Paonta. The petitioner protested to the Chief Commissioner, Bilaspur, and also sent a representation to the States Ministry at Delhi, against being appointed to a lower post. On 21-8-1950, petitioner was informed that his services were to be terminated. He was also placed under sus- pension. By order dated 17-10-1950, the Chief Commissioner terminated the services of the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner's contention is that he was a permanent member of the Bilaspur Civil Service and on the merger of the Bilaspur State with the Indian Dominion, he was entitled to continue in service under the same terms as before merger. His ease is that the State of Himachal Pradesh was not empowered to terminate his service as he was a permanent employee. It was further alleged that no charge- sheet was framed against him and no opportunity was given to him to show cause against his reduction and subsequent dismissal. The prayer made in this petition is that a writ be issued to the respondents declaring that the dismissal of the petitioner from service was illegal, 'ultra vires' and inoperative and further the respondents be directed to retain the petitioner in service, on the same terms, as formerly.
(3.) The petition is contested on law as well as on facts. One of the preliminary objections taken to the petition is that the petitioner has an equally convenient, efficient and effectual remedy by suit. The facts are in dispute and, therefore, it is contended that this Court cannot turn itself into a Court of original jurisdiction and proceed to enquire into the various issues which arise from the pleadings of the parties.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.