Union of India v. Gurbaksh Singh & Another

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided

5 February 1975

Case no.

0

Bench

Bhagwati,P.N.

Facts

The Respondent was appointed as an Assistant Settlement Commissioner by the Central Government on September 3, 1955. The post was created for a limited duration of six months, expiring on February 29, 1956. Despite the expiration, the Respondent continued in the role based on a sanction from the State Government. On April 17, 1956, the State Government attempted to terminate the Respondent's services. Following further correspondence, the Central Government issued a memorandum on January 18, 1959, stating that the Respondent's services were terminated effective February 18, 1959. The Respondent filed a suit against both the Central and State Governments, claiming the termination orders were illegal and sought recovery of unpaid salary and allowances.

Arguments

Petitioner Arguments

The Union of India argued that the State Government had the authority to terminate the Respondent's services based on the powers conferred by the Displaced Persons Act. They contended that the State Government's actions were valid and within their jurisdiction. The court, however, found that the State Government lacked the authority to make or terminate appointments to the post, as the appointment was made solely by the Central Government.

Respondent Arguments

The Respondent contended that his services could only be terminated by the Central Government, as they were the appointing authority. He argued that the State Government's termination was invalid and that he was entitled to salary and allowances up to the date of termination. The court agreed with the Respondent, emphasizing that the Central Government alone had the power to terminate his appointment.

Precedents considered

The judgment did not cite specific precedents but relied on established legal principles regarding the authority of appointing and terminating officers in government service, particularly under Article 310(1) of the Constitution of India, which delineates the powers of the Central Government in such matters.

Legal principles

The court considered the following legal principles

• The authority to appoint and terminate government officials lies with the appointing authority, which in this case was the Central Government.
• The State Government's role was limited to nominating candidates for appointment, not to terminate services.
• The legal framework established by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and the Constitution of India was pivotal in determining the validity of the termination.

Decision and reasoning

Rationale

The court reasoned that since the appointment was made by the Central Government, only they had the authority to terminate the Respondent's services. The State Government's actions were deemed unauthorized and without legal standing. The court criticized the State Government's attempt to assert authority over a post created and funded by the Central Government.

Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Union of India, affirming the High Court's ruling that the termination of the Respondent's services was invalid. The court ordered the Central Government to pay the Respondent his arrears of salary and allowances up to February 18, 1959.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of delineating authority between state and central governments in matters of public service appointments. It reinforces the principle that only the appointing authority can terminate an appointment, thereby protecting the rights of public servants against unauthorized actions by subordinate authorities.

Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)