Skip to content


Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Jagdish Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService;Constitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 1855-1857 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1982SC773; 1983(31)BLJR227; 1982LabIC441; (1982)1SCC421; 1982(2)SLJ7(SC)
ActsConstitution of India - Article 311(2)
AppellantUnion of India (Uoi)
RespondentJagdish Prasad
Excerpt:
....."purported to be done under the act" and the provision of s. 48 would apply, and (ii) on the basis of raleigh investment company ltd. v. governor. general in council, (74 i.a. 50) the suit was barred by s. 84(3) of the act, which enacts that no objection shall be taken to any assessment in any other manner than is provided in the act. held (per k. subba rao, j. r. mudholkar and v. ramaswami jj.): (i) since the respondent had no authority to levy a tax beyond what s. 142a of the government of india act, 1935, or what art. 276 permitted, the assessment proceedings were void in so far as they purported to levy a tax in excess of the permissible limit and authorise. its collection, and the assessment order would be no answer to the suit for the recovery of the excess amount, and..........made on an officiating basis. the order dated 7th may, 1964 upgrading the four posts to those of chief ticket inspector does not show that the upgrading was of a temporary character nor does that order promoting the respondent in each of the three appeals to the post of chief ticket inspector show that the promotion was on an officiating basis. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the union of india has also not been able to draw our attention to any rule which prescribes that the promotion of an employee to the post of chief ticket inspector shall initially be on an officiating basis. he must, therefore, proceed on the basis that the promotion of the respondents in each of the three appeals to the post of chief ticket inspector was on a permanent basis and if that be so the.....
Judgment:

1. There is nothing on the record to show that the appointment of the respondent in each of these three appeals was made on an officiating basis. The order dated 7th May, 1964 upgrading the four posts to those of Chief Ticket Inspector does not show that the upgrading was of a temporary character nor does that order promoting the respondent in each of the three appeals to the post of Chief Ticket Inspector show that the promotion was on an officiating basis. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has also not been able to draw our attention to any rule which prescribes that the promotion of an employee to the post of Chief Ticket Inspector shall initially be on an officiating basis. He must, therefore, proceed on the basis that the promotion of the respondents in each of the three appeals to the post of Chief Ticket Inspector was on a permanent basis and if that be so the reversion of each of them must be held to be violative of Article 311 Clause (2) of the Constitution. This indeed was not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India. His attempt was only to show that promotion of each respondent was on an officiating basis but for reasons given above that attempt cannot succeed.

2. We accordingly dismiss each of the three appeals with costs.


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