DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT RAJ STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. BABU SINGH GAUR:JUGAL KISHORE BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals by special leave. A common question of law arises for decision in these two appeals. Hence it is convenient to consider them together. The material facts are more fully set out in Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 1966. We shall set out those facts in detail. We shall refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 1011 of 1966 thereafter, briefly.

(2.) The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 1966, Jugal Kishore Bhatt was appointed as the Sales-tax Officer on June 29, 1948 by the Governor of U.P. At the time of his appointment the posts of Sales-tax Officers were temporary posts. He joined the service in the Sales-tax department at Bareilly on July 15, 1948. His appointment was a temporary basis. He continued to serve in that department as Sales-tax Officer until the year 1951 on temporary basis. In that year 1951 on temporary basis. In that year the Government issued G. O. No. ST. 419/X-941. Paragraph 4 of that order provided that as the posts detailed in the list annexed to the G. O. are likely to last for more than three years, the Governor is pleased to declare that the appointments made to those posts will be deemed to have been made in a substantive capacity and the incumbents thereof (shown in the list) other than those who are appointed to officiate in leave vacancies shall be treated as holders of those posts in a substantive capacity within the meaning of the order of the Governor regarding Fundamental Rule 26 (d) of the Financial Handbook, Volume II, Part II with retrospective effect from the date of their first appointments to those posts. The respondent continued in the department as Sales-tax Officer until 1953. In that year the Governor of U. P. in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution made the following rule:

(3.) Sometime in February 1953, the respondent was informed by the Commissioner of Sales-tax, U. P. that his appointment would terminate on March 31, 1953; but he could be re-employed in the post but he will be subject to the rule set out earlier. The respondent was asked to intimate to the Government by March 23, 1953 whether he was prepared to the re-employed from April 1, 1953 on the said terms. The respondent signified his consent for re-appointment on the terms mentioned in the letter. Thereafter he continued in service up to March 31, 1954. Subsequently his appointment was extended for a period of one year from April 1, 1954 to March 31, 1955.