Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
RATILAL B. SONI & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT16/02/1990
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II
CITATION:
1990 AIR 1132 1990 SCR (1) 414
1990 SCC Supl. 243 JT 1990 (1) 229
1990 SCALE (1)228
ACT:
Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961: Section 206A(2)--Panchay-
at Service--Employees--Deputation to State Service--Does not
confer a right to be absorbed on the deputation-post.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants belonging to the Revenue Department of
Gujarat State were allocated to the Panchayat Service when
the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 came into force and their
allocation became final under section 206A(2) of the Act.
Thereafter they went on deputation as Circle Inspectors in
the State service but were later reverted back to their
parent cadre in the Panchayat Service.
The appellants challenged their reversion before the
High Court which dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. It is clear from section 206A(2) of the Gujarat
Panchayats Act, 1961 that a Panchayat servant who is not
reallocated within a period of four years from the coming
into force of the Act would be deemed to be finally allocat-
ed to the Panchayat Service. The High Court has held that
the appellants have not been able to show that they made any
such options before the specified date. Even if the appel-
lant gave some sort of option the same having not been
accepted before the expiry of specified date, the appellants
stood finally allocated to the Panchayat Service. [416B-C]
2. The appellants being on deputation they could be
reverted to their parent cadre at any time and they do not
get any right to be absorbed on the deputation-post. There
is no infirmity In the judgment of the High Court. [416D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1012 of
1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.86 of the Gujarat
High
415
Court in B.I-.P.A. No. 259 of 1986.
B. Datta, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Shalini Soni for the Appel-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
lants.
T.U. Mehta and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J. The appellants are in the cadre of
Talatiscum-Mantries (Patwaries) in the Panchayat Service of
the State of Gujarat. In the year 1982/83 they were sent on
deputation to the higher cadre of Circle Inspectors in the
State service. The question for consideration is whether in
the facts of this case the appellants have a right to be
absorbed in the cadre of Circle Inspectors.
The appellants were originally appointed as Talatis in
the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat. Under the
Gujarat Panchayat Act (hereinafter called ’the Act’) which
came into force with effect from April 1, 1963, Panchayat
Service was constituted and under the Act all the posts of
Talatis along with the incumbents stood transferred to the
Panchayat Service. On that date there was a cadre of Circle
Inspectors in the State Service which was bifurcated and 50%
of the posts continued in the State Service and the remain-
ing 50% were transferred to the Panchayat Service. The
appellants were sent on deputation as Circle Inspectors in
the State Cadre. In January 1986 qualified officials became
available for promotion to the post of Circle Inspectors in
the State cadre and as such the appellants were reverted to
their parent cadre of Talatis in the Panchayat service. The
appellants challenged the reversion by way of writ petition
in the Gujarat High Court primarily on the ground that their
options for absorption in the State Service were pending
with the State Government which the State was bound to
decide in their favour. The High Court dismissed the writ
petition holding that there was nothing on the record to
show that the appellants gave any option to be absorbed in
the State cadre. The High Court also found that they, being
on deputation, have no legal right to be absorbed in the
State Service. This appeal by special leave is against the
judgment of the High Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The State
by a circular dated February 8, 1965 asked the Talatis among
others to give their options as to whether they want to
remain in the Panchayat Service or to be re-allocated to the
State Service. Section 206A(2) of the Act is as under:
416
"Any officer or servant who is not reallocated
under sub-section (1) and continues in the Panchayat Service
immediately before the expiry of the aforesaid period of
four years, shall on such expiry, be deemed to be finally
allocated to the Panchayat Service."
It is clear from the above quoted provision that a
Panchayat servant who is not reallocated within a period of
four years from. April 1, 1963 would be deemed to be finally
allocated to the Panchayat Service. The High Court has held
that the appellants have not been able to show that they
made any such options before March 31, 1967. Even if it is
assumed that the appellants gave some sort of option the
same having not been accepted before March 31, 1967, the
appellants stood finally allocated to the Panchayat Service.
The appellants being on deputation they could be revert-
ed to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any
right to be absorbed on the deputation-post. We see no
infirmity in the judgment of the High Court and as such we
dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
?417
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3