Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4247-4248 of 2001
PETITIONER:
Union of India
RESPONDENT:
Dr. Jai Dev Wig & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/10/2007
BENCH:
H.K. Sema & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4247-4248 OF 2001
Heard Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel for the
Union of India, and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel
appearing for the Union Territory of Chandigarh. None
appears on behalf of the principal respondents-Dr. Jai Dev
Wig and Dr. M.S. Sekhon.
The challenge in these appeals is to the orders dated
7.8.1998 in CWP No. 12360-C/1998 and 8.7.1999 in CWP
6169-C/1998 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh.
Despite receipt of notice, principal respondents-Dr. Jai
Dev Wig and Dr. M.S. Sekhon are not represented either by
themselves or by a counsel. It was contended that by this
time they might have retired from service.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
The respondent-Dr. Jai Dev Wig was working as
Additional Professor, Department of Surgery, Post Graduate
Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.
The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Department of Personnel & A.R., issued an Office
Memorandum dated 9.4.1981 on the subject of relaxation of
upper age limit for departmental candidates in Government
departments giving relaxation of a maximum of 5 years in the
upper age limit for recruitment to other Group \021A\022 or Group \021B\022
posts through an advertisement by the Commission. The
respondent-Dr. Jai Dev Wig filed an application before the
Central Administrative Tribunal claiming benefit of age
relaxation provided to the Government servants in terms of the
aforesaid office memorandum. The Tribunal allowed the
application.
Aggrieved thereby, the Union Public Service Commission
filed a writ petition before the High Court as aforesaid. By the
said order the High Court was of the view that the post held by
the principal respondent was akin to the Government servant
and, therefore, he is entitled to the relaxation. The High Court
was, however, of the view that the provisions of Article 311 of
the Constitution of India do not apply to the employees of the
Institute. Before the High Court, it was the case of the
Commission that Dr. Wig was overage as on the cut-off-date
and he being not in Government service was not eligible for
the benefit of relaxation. The said contention was repelled by
the High Court holding Dr. Jai Dev Wig entitled to the
relaxation at par with the Government servants.
It is not in dispute that the Post Graduate Institute in
which respondents-Dr. Jai Dev Wig and Dr. M.S. Sekhon were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
serving is a creation by an Act of Parliament and as such it is
an autonomous body. However, the services of the
respondents were not covered by the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution. Article 311, as held by the High Court, was
also not attracted in their case. Therefore, in our considered
opinion it cannot be held that the respondents are
Government servants. The benefit of Office Memorandum
dated 9th April, 1981 giving relaxation of upper age limit for
departmental candidates for appointment to Group \021A\022 and
Group \021B\022 posts cannot be legally extended to the service
conditions of Dr. Jai Dev Wig and Dr. M.S. Sekhon.
Thus, the contrary view taken by the High Court holding
both the respondents entitled for benefit of relaxation in terms
of the aforesaid Office Memorandum is erroneous and cannot
be sustained. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
The orders of the High Court as well as the order of the
Tribunal granting benefit to the respondents shall stand set
aside. We may clarify that in the meantime if any benefit of
the order of relaxation has been given to Dr. Jai Dev Wig and
Dr. M.S. Sekhon by the concerned authority, such benefit
shall not be withdrawn from them. No order as to costs.