A civil servant dismissed after suspension had his dismissal set aside; on reinstatement he was reverted from an officiating post to his substantive post with retrospective effect. The Supreme Court held the reversion carried no penal consequences and upheld it, dismissing the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
639
A
NARESH CHANDRA SABA
v.
UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA & ORS.
October 6, 1969
B
[J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HBGDB, JJ.]
Civil Servant-Reposting in officiating po.rt held at the time of dl.smissal after order of dismissal set aside-Subsequent reversion to substantive post-Legality.
Practice and Proc~ure-Petition filed in High Courl challenging order passed 7 years before-If could be entertained.
c The appellant, who W"3 a junior officer in the State service, was appointed as an officiating senior officer on May 10, 1954. O~ May 12, 1954, an order was passed reverting hilll to the post of junior officer. On the ground that he refused to ohey the order of reversion, on May 6, 1957 he was suspended, and ultimately dismissed. The orders of ~he. suspension and dismissal were set aside by the Coun of Judicial Commissioner. By orde< dated November 7. 1960, he was reinstated in the, post of the senior officer which he was holding on the date of his suspension, with effect from the D afternoon of May 7, 1957. By the same order. he was reverted to his substantive post of junior officer with retrospective effect from June. 7, 1957, as another officer was alr.-ady occupying the post. The appellant, thereupon, challenged both the orders dated May 12, 1954, and November 7, 1960, but the Judicial Commissioner dismissed the petition.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD: (1) The order dated November 7, 1960 reverting the apE pe11ant to his substantive post did not entail forfeitur~ of the appellant's pay or aUowances, or toss of seniority in his substantive rank, or stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion. The appellant could not claim the: salary of the senior post from the date of suspension or dismis5al till date of reinstatement, because, the appropriate authority, when reinstating thC appellant could revert him, as from an earlier date, to his substantive post from the officiating post. provided the order was not passed F ma/a fide. [641 H; 642 B-Cl
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, [19581 S.C.R. 828, referred to. ' (2) There is nothing to show that any retrospective operation \VQS given to the order dated May 12, 1954 In any event, the Judicial Commissioner was justified in refusing to entertain any contention as to its vali~itv seven years after the order was passed. [640 HJ
G
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2203 of 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 8, 1965 of the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Tripura in Writ Petition No. 27 of 1961.
H
M. Jr. Romamurthi and Shyama/o Pappu, for the appellant.
V. A. &yid Muhammad, S. P. Nayar and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent~.
·;,.. '
(1970) 2 S.C.R.
640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A
The J udgrnent of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. The appellant joined the Tripura Civil Service en October 30, 1949, and was posted as a probationer Divisional Purchasing Officer, Dhannnagar. In 1953 the Tripura Civil Service was split into iwo cadres-senior officers being absorbed as Sub-Divisional Officers and junior officers as Sub-Treasury Officers. The appellant was absorbed as Sub-Treasury Officer with effect from April 1, 1950. On May 10, 1954, the appellant ·was appointed officiating Sub-Divisional Officer with effect from September 10, 1953. By order dated May 12, 1954, the appel· !ant was reverted io the post of Sub-Treasury Officer with effect from May 6, 1954. The appellant made several representations to the Chief Commissioner but without success. The appellant was suspended by order dated May 6. 1957, for failure to obey the orders of the Additional District Magistrate and he was dismissed with effect from July 3, 1958, by the order of the Chief Commissioner.
B
c
The appellant moved a petition in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner at Tripura challenging the orders of susJiension and dismissal. On February 19, 1960 the Court set aside the impugned orders. By order dated November 7, 1960 the Chief Commissioner reinstated the appellant to the post of Superintendent of Surveys and by the same order reverted him to his substantive post of Sub-Treasury Officer with retrospective effecr from June 7, 1957. The appeal of the appellant to the President having been rejected, he moved a petition in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for a writ quashing the orders dated May 12, 1954 and November 7, 1960. The appellant conteT\dP.d that an order of reversion cannot be made to have retrospective ()pera- . tion.
D
E
F
The petition insofar as it relates to the first order was belated. Again there is no ground for holding thai retrospective operation was in fact ~ven to that order of reversion. By the order dated May 12, 1954 .the appellant was reverted to the post of SnbTreasury Officer, but the .order did not>Sfate the date from which the l>rder was to be effective. In summarising the avennents made in the petition, the Judicial Commissionet stated that the oetitioner had aDe11ed that the order dated May 12, 1954, was to llave. effect from May 6, 1954. A copy of that Tietition -ls ·not filed in this Court and we are unable to accept, especially havinJ!' re2ard to the terms of the order, that any retrosnective opera·· tion was souRht to be ~ven. In anv event .the Judicial Commissioner was ju!llifled in refusinir to. entertain · any contention as to the valiillty of the order of reversion made nearly seven yean before the date on which the petition was filed.·
G
H
N. C. SAHA v. TR!PURA (Shah, J.)
641
(!) [1951] .C.R. R2. 86J.
642
SUPREME COURT RBPOllTS
[197Q) 2 S.C.R.
A
Counsel for the appellant urged that whenever a person is reinstated as from the date on which his services were terminated he must be restored to the same office which he was holding at the date of the termination of employment or suspension and must receive salary upto the date of reinstatement which that office carried. We find no warrant for the submission. If the appellant had not be ~n suspended, it was open to the Chief Com· B missioner still to revert him to his substantive post. We see no reason for holding that the Chi.ef Commissioner· could not do so when he reinstated the appellant. There is no ground for thinking that the order was made maliciously. The reason for reversion was that since June 7, 1957 another officer was occupying the post of the Superintendent of Surveys. The post having been c already filled, the appellant cannot claim that when he was reinstated he should have been paid emoluments atiached to the office of Sub-Divisional Officer on the footing that he continued to occupy that office which he was holding in an officiating capacity. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. Having regard D to the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
B
c
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
..
2 issues framed by the court
Whether reinstatement after dismissal was set aside could be accompanied by reversion from an officiating post to the substantive post with retrospective effect.
Whether a challenge to a reversion order passed seven years earlier could be entertained.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of IndiaReferred¶13
[1958] S.C.R. 828 · Who else cites this
Naresh Chandra Saba
Union Territory of Tripura
J. C. Shah
K. S. HBGDB
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
