RATILAL B SONI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(SC)-1990-2-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on February 16,1990

Ratilal B. Soni And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State of Gujarat and Others Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

PRAMOD SHARMA VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2004-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION VS. AJAY SEHGAL [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRAJLAL SUNDARJI THAKAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1993-3-12] [RELIED ON]
NATVARLAL MOTILAL CHAVDA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2000-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
MEHAMOOD AKHATAR VS. SOBRAN SINGH YADAV [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-141] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR VS. RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD [LAWS(ALL)-2004-4-159] [REFERRED TO]
GAURI SHANKER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-8-67] [REFERRED TO]
RAMENDRA NATH VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-1998-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. RAMENDRA NATH DEY [LAWS(GAU)-2000-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2001-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
MARTHON J SANGMA VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
GITANJALI S BHATTACHARYYA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
T NATHAN AND SIX ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1993-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
S PONNUSAMY VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-2-203] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ANURAG VERMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2001-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-8-255] [REFFERED TO]
P M MARI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
Nasir Hadi VS. State of Bihar [LAWS(PAT)-1993-5-8] [RELIED ON]
SUMANTPANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1995-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA PRASAD SINHA VS. NAVODAY VIDYALAYA SAMITI [LAWS(PAT)-1996-9-82] [RELIED ON]
ANIL SHUKLA VS. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
AMANULLAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2003-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
H.S.E.B. VS. UNIVERSAL FASTENERS (P) LTD [LAWS(P&H)-1999-11-114] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. INDER SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1997-10-37] [RELIED ON]
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. UNIVERSAL FASTENERS PVT LIMITED [LAWS(P&H)-1999-11-30] [REFERRED]
R.N.Agarwal (D.) by L.Rs. VS. Laxmi Sugar Mills Co.Pvt.Ltd. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-248] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR JAIN VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRABHAN SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-98] [REFERRED TO]
SAEED AHMAD KHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI BAKSHI VS. H.P.SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [LAWS(HPH)-1996-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM PRASAD VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-196] [REFERRED TO]
SAGIR KHAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-9-4] [REFERRED]
DR. O.P. SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2002-8-226] [REFERRED TO]
LAL BAHADUR CHAUDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(CA)-2015-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) VS. MANORANJAN KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-356] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH CHANDRA TIWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-138] [REFERRED TO]
BIJOY KRISHNA DHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1992-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINING INSTITUTE & ORS. VS. SUBHAS CHANDRA MISRA & ANR. [LAWS(CAL)-1995-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH NEGI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-114] [REFERRED TO]
KABERI MAITRA VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
P. RAMAKRISHNAN, (FORMERLY WORKING AS SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES), PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD VS. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI [LAWS(KER)-2017-1-117] [REFERRED TO]
P.RAMAKRISHNAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2017-1-204] [REFERRED TO]
KHETRI VIKAS SAMITI AND ORS VS. NON GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INS [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-12-110] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL CANNIE AND ORS. VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2017-10-76] [REFERRED TO]
MRINAL KANTI GHOSH VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
NIKHIL CHANDRA DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
NANDINI BHATTACHARJEE VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-4-68] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Kuldip Singh, J. - (1.)The appellants are in the cadre of Talatis-cum-Mantries (Patwaries) in the Panchayat Service of the State of Gujarat. In the year 1982/83 they were sent on deputation to the higher cadre of Circle Inspectors in the State service. The, question for consideration is whether in the facts of this case the appellants have a right to be absorbed in the cadre of Circle Inspectors.
(2.)The appellants were originally appointed as Talatis in the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat. Under the Gujarat Panchayat Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') which came into force with effect from April 1, 1963, Panchayat Service was constituted and under the Act all the posts of Talatis along with the incumbents stood transferred to the Panchyat Service. On that date there was a cadre of Circle Inspectors in the State Service which was bifurcated and 50% of the posts continued in the State Service and the remaining 50% were transferred to the Panchayat Service. The appellants were sent on deputation as Circle Inspectors in the State Cadre. In January 1986 qualified officials became available for promotion to the post of Circle Inspectors in the State cadre and as such the appellants were reverted to their parent cadre of Talatis in the Panchayat service. The appellants challenged the reversion by way of writ petition in the Gujarat High Court primarily on the ground that their, options for absorption in the State service were pending with the State Government which the State was bound to decide in their favour. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there was nothing on the record to show that the appellants gave any option to be absorbed in the State cadre. The High Court also found that they, being on deputation, have no legal right to be absorbed in the State Service. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the High Court.
(3.)We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The State by a circular dated February 8, 1965 asked the Talatis among others to give their options as to whether they want to remain in the Panchayat Service or to be reallocated to the State Service. S. 206A(2) of the Act is as under:
"Any officer or servant who is not reallocated under sub-section (1) and continues in the Panchayat Service immediately before the expiry of the aforesaid period of four years, shall on such expiry, be deemed to be finally allocated to the Panchayat Service."

;


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