Skip to content


Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetter Patent Appeal No. 341 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1969P& H396
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantDaulat Ram
RespondentState of Punjab and anr.
Appellant Advocate G.C. Mittal and; Parkash Chand Jain, Advs.
Respondent Advocate M.S. Pannu,; Baldev Kapur, Advs. for; Adv. General a
Cases ReferredMangal Sain v. State of Punjab
Excerpt:
.....anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted..........this observation, this appeal will stand dismissed as infructuous without any order as to costs.r.s. narula, j.4. i agree,prem chand jain , j.5. i agree,6. appeal dismissed.
Judgment:

Shamsher Bahadur, J.

1. This letters patent Appeal from the order of Pandit Appeal from the order of Pandit , J. was admitted for hearing before a Full Bench on 19th January, 1966. It arises out of a writ petition brought against premature termination of his services by the appellant Daulat Ram who was appointed an Executive officer of Kotkapura Municipality on 7 th February, 1963, for a period of five years under the Patiala Municipal (Executive Officers) Act, 2003 BK ., which empowers the Government to appoint any person as Executive Officer 'for a renewable period not exceeding five years'. The services of the appellant were terminated on 21st April , 1965, Simultaneously, on the same day, the appellant was appointed an Executive Officer at Rajpura for the remaining period of the original term of appointment which was to expire on 6th of February, 1968.

2. The writ petition giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal was thereafter filed on 24th April , 1965. This was dismissed by Pandit, J. on 13th October, 1965. As the question involved the correctness of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kishori Lal Batra v. Punjab State, AIR 1958 Punj 402, Which followed the earlier decision in Mangal Sain v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 Punj 58, the admitting Bench directed that the case be heard by a full Bench.

3. The question for determination relates to the termination of the appellant's appointment before the expiry of the term of five years as an Executive Officer of the Kotkapura Municipality. This contention, as rightly urged by Mr. M. S. Pannu, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (The state of Punjab), has become infructuous on every point. The original tem of appointment, as submitted by him, expired in any event on 6th February, 1968. Even if the appeal is allowed,. The appellant cannot one claim reinstatement of his position as executive Officer of Kotkapura Municipality. The only apprehension in the mind of the appellant according to his learned counsel Mr. G. C. Mittal ,is that the State Government , should this appeal be deemed to have been dismissed, may decide to terminate his services on the precedent of Kotkapura once again at Rajpura or appoint him somewhere else. We want to make it clear that the question raised in the letters Patent Appeal is Left open, should it arise in a suitable case. We are only concerned with the present appeal which we think has become wholly infrustuous. It will always be open for the appellant or anyone else similarly situated to raise the question of premature termination of services in such circumstances in appropriate proceedings. With this observation, this appeal will stand dismissed as infructuous without any order as to costs.

R.S. Narula, J.

4. I agree,

Prem Chand Jain , J.

5. I agree,

6. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //