# Court-998- K.H. Phandnis v. State of

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 75
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-01-07
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/court-998-k-h-phandnis-v-state-of-40072
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art
311(2)
reversion from higher post to his original
post-petitioner worked on higher post on
deputation No applicability of Art 311 (2)
re- version held valid
Held-para 4
In view of what has been stated above,
since the petitioner was admittedly on
deputation in Trade Tax Department and
no punishment has been awarded to the
petitioner,
the
petitioner
has
been
simply
repatriated
to
his
parent
department, the same order does not
cast stigma on the petitioner or is an
order of punitive in nature. Therefore,
the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, that the respondents who
are constitutionally mandate to comply
with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of
the
Constitution
of
India
which,
admittedly, has not been complied with
in the present case, is not applicable.
Therefore, the argument advanced on
behalf
of
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner deserves to be rejected and is
hereby rejected.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1971 SC 998

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Bhola Prasad Nishad Vs. D.M., Deoria and others
75
3. In our opinion when the period of
a lease has expired the lessee cannot
claim extension of the period of the lease
on the ground that he was not permitted to
operate the lease for the whole or part of
the lease period vide Jata Shankar Pandey
Vs. Collector, Writ Petition No. 13638 of
1993 decided on 5.10.1993 by a division
bench
of
this
Court.
In
these
circumstances the petitioner can only file
an application claiming for refund of the
lease amount or proportionate lease
amount, as the case may be.

4. However, if the petitioner makes
such an application the same will be
decided by the authority concerned
preferably within two months thereafter in
accordance with law.
The
writ
petition
is
disposed
off
accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JANUARY 14TH, 2003.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ petition no. 51124 of 2002

Mohar Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Joint commissioner (SIB) and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Art
311(2)
reversion from higher post to his original
post-petitioner worked on higher post on
deputation No applicability of Art 311 (2)
re- version held valid
Held-para 4
In view of what has been stated above,
since the petitioner was admittedly on
deputation in Trade Tax Department and
no punishment has been awarded to the
petitioner,
the
petitioner
has
been
simply
repatriated
to
his
parent
department, the same order does not
cast stigma on the petitioner or is an
order of punitive in nature. Therefore,
the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, that the respondents who
are constitutionally mandate to comply
with the provisions of Article 311 (2) of
the
Constitution
of
India
which,
admittedly, has not been complied with
in the present case, is not applicable.
Therefore, the argument advanced on
behalf
of
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner deserves to be rejected and is
hereby rejected.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1971 SC 998

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner, Mohar Singh has
challenged
the
order
dated
22nd
November, 2002 passed by the respondent
no. 1, a copy whereof has been annexed
as annexure 5 to the writ petition,
whereby
the
petitioner
has
been
repatriated to his parent department from
Trade Tax Department where he was
working on deputation.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the impugned order
dated 22nd November, 2002.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that recital in the order that
after
consideration,
the
joint
commissioner, trade tax, Lucknow has
decided to repatriate the aforesaid two
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
employees, including the petitioner from
the trade tax impartment. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied upon the
decision reported in AIR 1971 Supreme
Court-998- K.H. Phandnis vs. State of
Maharashtra, wherein the apex court has
held that reversion from temporary
officiating post without compliance of
provisions of Article 311 (2) of the
Constitution of India even in the case of
reversion
from
temporary
post
to
substantive post, amounts to violation of
Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of
India and in that case in the absence of
regular enquiry having been done, as in
the present case, the impugned order
deserves to be set aside. The facts of the
case narrated above and the facts of the
present case are different though, the
learned counsel for the petitioner referring
to paragraph 3 of the aforesaid judgement
has stated that since the petitioner was not
selected to the post on which he was sent
on deputation and was working on
deputation which was higher post i.e.
substantive post, therefore, the impugned
order repatriating the petitioner to his
parent department to his substantive post
has been held by the apex court in the
facts and circumstance of the case to be a
case of reversion which could not have
been done except after compliance of
provisions of Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India. In the present case
in the narration of facts, as stated in the
writ petition, the petitioner who was
working on the same post to which he was
appointed in his parent department in
substantive capacity. Thus the present
case cannot be said to be a case of
reversion. It is a case of repatriating
simplicitor and, therefore, the law laid
down by the apex Court relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioner do
not apply to the present case.
4. In view of what has been stated
above, since the petitioner was admittedly
on deputation in Trade Tax Department
and no punishment has been awarded to
the petitioner, the petitioner has been
simply
repatriated
to
his
parent
department, the same order does not cast
stigma on the petitioner or is an order of
punitive
in
nature.
Therefore,
the
contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, that the respondents who are
constitutionally mandate to comply with
the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the
Constitution of India which, admittedly,
has not been complied with in the present
case, is not applicable. Therefore, the
argument advanced on behalf of learned
counsel for the petitioner deserves to be
rejected and is hereby rejected.

5. In view of what has been said
above, this writ petition deserves to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to
cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 7.1.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH J,

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54380 of 2002

Dharmendra Dhish Dubey
...Petitioner
Versus
Chairman,
Rani
Laxmi
Bai
Kshetria
Gramin Bank and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Indra Mani Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nripendra Mishra