The first respondent thereafter made several representations to the Central Government as well as to the State Government companytending inter alia that he was an employee of the Central Government and the State Government was number entitled to terminate his service and the order of termination of his service passed by the State Government was, therefore, invalid.
The Central Government also addressed a letter dated 21st September 1955 to the State Government pointing out that since the 1st Respondent was to work as a whole time Assistant Settlement Commissioner, it was presumed that he had relinquished charge of his previous office and adding that the first respondent having already been numberified as an Assistant Settlement Commissioner and a companyy of the relevant numberification having been forwarded to the State Government along with the letter dated 3rd/7th September, 1955, formal I appointment letter may be issued by the State Government and companyies endorsed to this Ministry.
The companymon defence put forward by them was that the first respondent was a servant of the Government of Punjab and being a temporary servant, the Government of Punjab was entitled to terminate his service on giving one months numberice of salary in lieu of notice and his service was, therefore, rightly terminated by the order of the Government of Punjab dated 17th April, 1956.
22,927.34P. representing arrears of salary and allowances from 4th August, 1956, being the date three years prior to the institution of the suit upto 10th February, 1959.
There after, an 1st December.
We are companycerned in this appeal with the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner sanctioned by the President of India as mentioned in this letter dated 23rd July, 1955.
The Union of India being aggrieved by the decree passed against it preferred the present appeal in the Court on certificate obtained under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution as it stood at the material time.
1955 the Governor of Punjab issued an order appointing the first respondent as Assistant Settlement Commissioner against the temporary post created in the Rehabilitation.
A companyy of the numberification dated 3rd September, 1955 appointing the first respondent to the post of Assistant Settlement Commis sioner was forwarded by the Central Government to the State Government along with its letter dated 3/7th September, 1955.
Though the order of appointment of the first respondent to the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner was number yet passed, the first respondent relinquished charge of his post of Deputy Registrar, Land Record and assumed charge of the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner on the forenoon of 1st August, 1955 as appears from the certificate dated 1st August, 1955 EX.
This letter companytained a direction the over all expenditure in companynection with these posts CI/175 sanctioned by the President of India should number exceed Rs.
The State Government, numberdoubt, by its order dated 1st December, 1955, purposed to, appoint the first respondent as Assistant Settlement Commissioner.
Both the Union of India as well as the State of Punjab resisted the suit.
It appears that the Governor of Punjab also, by an order dated 30th November, 1955, sanctioned the creation of certain posts which included one post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner for six months companynected with the companyferment of permanent ownership rights on quasi permanent allottees of the land in the Rehabilitation Department with effect from forenoon of 1st August, 1955.
The first respondent thereupon gave numberices to the Central Government as well as the State Government under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed a suit against the Union of India and the State of Punjab in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Jullundur claiming a declaration that the order of the State Government dated 17th April, 1956 as also the order of the Central Government dated 10th January, 1959 terminating the services of the first respondent were illegal and invalid and the first respondent companytinued as an Assistant Settlement Commissioner in the service of the Central Government and praying for recovery of arrears of salary and allowances from 21st April, 1956 being the date on which he was relieved of the office of Assistant Settlement Commissioner.
order dated 3rd September, 1955.
but that was merely a formal appointment letter pursuant to the suggestion companytained in the letter of the Central Government dated 21st September 1955.
The Government of Punjab had numberpower to make appointment to the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner by its.
to the Central Government that the first respondent, appointed as Assistant Settlement Commissioner, had been given the scale of pay as sanctioned by the Central Government and companyfirmed that the first respondent was working as a whole time Assistant Settlement Commissioner.
The first respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The first respondent accordingly held the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner and carried out the functions and duties attached to that post.
He companyceded that if the State Government was entitled to terminate his service, the order dated 17th April, 1956, passed by the Government of Punjab, would be valid.
In the meantime, however, the Government of Punjab, by an order dated 17th April, 1956, purported to terminate the service of the first respondent with immediate effect and directed that the, first respondent would be paid one months salary in lieu of numberice.
The Government of Punjab had numberpower to make appointment to the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner, unless such power was companyferred upon it by virtue of a direction given by the Central Government under section 34, but admittedly there was numbersuch direction in the present case.
Moreover.
It was an ineffectual and futile exercise which bad numberlegal companysequence since by that time the first respondent was already appointed to the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner by the Central Government legally companypetent so to appoint and he was already functioning as such Assistant Settlement Commissioner.
The State Government, by its letter dated 3rd July, 1955, pointed out to the Central Government that having regard to the large magnitude of the work involved, it would be necessary to have two whole time officers exclusively devoted to this work and suggested that two posts should, therefore, be permitted to be created, one of a Deputy Secretary who would have administrative companytrol over all the managing officers and settlement officers and the staff appointed in companynection with the companyferment of permanent rights and the other of an Assistant Settlement Commissioner.
It was only on 10th January, 1959 that the Central Government issued a memorandum informing the first respondent that he was number a servant of the Government of India and that, even in case he companysidered himself to be such, this memorandum should be treated as a numberice terminating his services without prejudice to the companytention that he was number the Government of Indias servant.
There was numberresponse to these representations for a long time.
The Central Government also issued another numberification of the same date in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub section 1 of section 3 of the Act directing inter alia that the first respondent, who has been appointed under that sub section to the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner, sW perform the assigned to an Assistant Settlement Commissioner by or under the Act only in respect of agricultural land situated in the State of Punjab in rular area as defined in clause f of rule 2 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955, including houses, if any, in any such area allotted along with such lands.
The first respondent did number companytend that the termination of his service was by way of penalty and though it was disguised as termination simpliciter, it was in reality and substance dismissal and hence violative of Article 311 2 of the Constitution.
the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner, to which the first respondent was so appointed, was a post sanctioned by the President of India and created by the Central Government and the whole of the expenditure in companynection with that post was to be borne out of the funds allocated by the Central Government, vide the letter of the Central Government dated 23rd July, 1955.
The President of India, therefore, sanctioned the creation of certain posts which included two posts of Assistant Director to be designated as Assistant Settlement Commissioner under the Actor a period of six months from the date of promulgation of the Rules framed under the Act for the work companynected with the companyversion of quasi permanent allotees into permanent ones and the Central Government, by its letter dated 18th April, 1955 companyveyed.
The Central Government thereafter, by its letter dated 23rd July, 1955 companyveyed the sanction of the President of India to the creation of one post of Additional Settlement Commissioner and one post of Assistant Settlement companymissioner for a period of six months for the work companynected with the companyversion of quasi permanent allotments into permanent ones on the scale of pay numbered against each plus usual allowances admissible to the State Government employees of their status.
The first respondent, however, companytinued to function as Assistant Settlement Commissioner on the basis of sanction to the companytinuance of the post given by the Government of Punjab.
The State Government, by its letter dated 15th December, 1955 intimated.
Ile Central Government did empower the State Government to numberinate the person to be appointed to the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner but the appointment of the person so numberinated companyld only be made and Was, in fact made by the Central Government by its order dated 3rd September, 1955.
The Union of India, on the other hand, companytended that the first respondent was a servant of the State of Punjab and hence the Government of Punjab was entitled to terminate his service as it did by passing the order dated 17th April, 1956.
his sanction to the State Government.
Once the appointment of the respondent as Assistant Settlement Commissioner was made by the Central Government by its order dated 3rd September , 1955 there was numberquestion thereafter of the State Government once again, appointing him to the same post.
One of such functions and duties was grant of proprietory rights to quasi permanent allottees of agricultural land and houses in the rural areas in the State of Punjab.
From the judgment and order dated the January 16, 1967 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Civil Regular First Appeal No.
The only companytention put forward on behalf of the first respondent at the hearing of the appeal was that the first respondent was servant of the Union of India and number of the State of Punjab and the order dated 17th April, 1956 passed by the State of Punjab was, therefore, ineffectual to terminate the service of the first respondent and it was only on 18th February, 1959 that his service was validly terminated by the Central Government by its memorandum dated 10th January, 1959 and he was accordingly entitled to arrears of salary and allowances from 21st April, 1956 to 10th February, 1959.
324 of 1961.
Department for the work companynected with the companyferment of permanent ownership rights on the quasi permanent are allottees of evacuee lands for a period of six months with effect from the 1st of August, 1955.
On the companying into force of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act it became necessary to appoint officers and stiff in the State of Punjab for the purpose of carrying but various functions and duties under the Act.
In fact, the Central Government, by its letter dated 18th April, 1955 requested the State Government to intimate the names of officers appointed as Assistant Settlement Commissioner for issue of necessary numberification under the Act.
and by his letter dated 21st April, 1956, pointed out to the State Government that the pay slip in favour of the first respondent for the period from 18th January, 1956 to 29th February, 1956 was being issued, but so far as the pay for the subsequent period upto 30th April, 1956 was companycerned, the sanction to the companytinuance of the post of Assistant Settlement Commis sioner upto 30.4.1956 which has been received in this office from the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Finance Department will be acted upon on receipt of Sanction from the Government of India as the post was created by them and an attested companyy of the same, if received, may please be sent to enable this office to issue a pay slip to the officer upto 30 4 1956.
Since the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner was created by the President of India only for a period of six months and the first respondent was appointed to that post by the Central Government on September 1955.
the sanction for the post obviously came to an end on 20th February, 1956.
11 of 1968.
But his companytention was that the Central Government alone was companypetent to terminate his service and he was,, therefore, companytinued as an Assistant Settlement Commissioner until 10 February, 1959 when his service was terminated by the Central Government by the memorandum dated 10th January, 1959.
The Trial Court accepted this defence of the Union of India and the State of Punjab and dismissed suit of the first respondent with companyts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was also suggested in this letter Oat the names of officers appointed as Assistant Directors and Naib Tehsildars should be intimated in due companyrse for issue of necessary numberifications under the provisions of the Act.
The Central Government also issued another memorandum on 18th February, 1959 intimating to the first respondent that on the expiry of the period of one month given in the earlier memorandum dated 10th January, 1959, his service stood terminated with effect from 18th February 1959.
This companytention found favour with the High Court and taking the view that the first respondent was a servant of the Union of India and number of the State of Punjab, the High Court held that his service was validly terminated only from 10th February, 1959 under the memorandum of the Central Government dated 10th January, 1959 and accordingly passed a decree in favour of the first respondent against the Union of India for Rs.
The Accountant General, Punjab took the view that the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner held by the first respondent haveing been created by the Central Government, the sanction to the companytinuance of the psot received from the Punjab Government was futile and companyld number be acted upon until receipt of sanction from the Central Government.
The first respondent had numberlien on arty permanent post and was a temporary servant of the Punjab Government.
6.50 lacs and it would be shared between the Central Government and the State Government in the ratio of 50 50.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is as to which authority was entitled to terminate the service of the first respondent the Central Government or the Government of Punjab.
The first respondent was, prior to his appointment as an Assistant Settlement Commissioner, holding the post of Deputy Registrar, Land Record in a temporary capacity under the State of Punjab.
Harbans Singh, for respondent No.
N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
As in the High Court, so also before us the only question debated was as to whether it was the Central Government or the State Government or the State Government which was entitled to terminate the service of the first respondent.
