# S.S. KARMALKAR & OTHERS ETC v. IBRAHIM HUSSENI TAMBOLI & OTHERS ETC. •

- **Citation:** [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 712
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1988-10-31
- **Bench:** Murari Mohon Dutt, S. Natarajan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-s-karmalkar-others-etc-v-ibrahim-husseni-tamboli-others-etc-10178
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

c
D
E
Civil Services: Food and Civil Supplies Department SholapurWhether part and parcel of Revenue Department-Inspecting
Officers-Status of
The appellants were promoted in January 1981 as Awai Karkuns
in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies; Sholapur. At the same
time, the private respondents holding those posts were directed to be
repatriated to their parent department, that is, the Revenue Department. The private respondents challanged these orders by way of a civil
suit on the ground that these orders were unjust, ille~al and violative of
Articles-14 and 16 of the Coustitution. The Civil Judge decreed the suit ..
The Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court upheld the decree.
· Tlte High Court came to the finding that the Food & Civil Supplies
Department, Sholapur, had no separate existence on the date .the
impugned order was passed and that it was part and parcel of the
Revenue Department.
It is contended by the private respondents that on the abolition of
the statutory rationing, the Food & Civil supplies Department was
abolished, and the appellants were absorbed in the Revenue Department. This contention is disputed by the apellants.
F
Allowing the appeals, it was,
HELD: (1) It was not disputed that after the introduction of
statutory rationing, the Food & Civil Supplies Department was an independent Government Department at Sholapur. l 7 lSG J
G
(2) It was wrong to assume that the Food & Civil Supplies
Department dealing with food and supply thereof, was abolished consequent on the abolition of the statutory rationing. [718D I
(3) The fact of introduction or abolition of statutory rationing
had nothing to do with the question of food and supply thereof, which
B
inust be dealt with by some department of the Government and after
I
S.S. KARMALKAR v. LS. TAMBOLI
713
the creation of the Food & Civil Snpplies Department, it was dealt with
by that Department. [7I8C]
( 4) As the Department existed, it conld be reasonably presumed
that it had its own staff and the appellant's contention that they
were retained in the Food & Civil Supplies Department seemed to be
correct. [718Ef
(5) There was no material in proof of the alleged absorption of the
appellants in the Revenue Department. Moreover, as they did not fulfil
the conditions for absorption in the Revenue Department, they could
not be transferred to or absorbed in that Department. [717C; 718H]
( 6) It is true that there was no order showing that the respondents
were transferred on deputation from the Revenue Department to the
Food & Civil Supply Department. It could, however, be reasonably
presumed that the respondents were sent on deputation to the Food &
Civil Supplies Department, otherwise there was no question of their
A
B
c
repatriation to their parent department. [718H; 719A]
D
(7) It was apparent from the fact that separate rules were framed for
recruitment of officers in the Food anil Civil Supplies Department and a
final gradation list was also prepared and published, that the Food and
Civil Supplies Department was not part and parcel of the Revenue
Department, but it had a separate and independent existence. [719G I
E
(8) As the appellants belonged to a different department, their
promotions would be governed by the rules of that department. Simi·
larly, the promotion of the private respondents would be considered in
accordance with the rules of the Revenue Department. [72IA]
Shri Atmaram Chaturvedi Garbade & Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., Special Civil Applications Nos. 707 of 1974 and
4834 of 197~Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, referred to.

## Text

A
S.S. KARMALKAR & OTHERS ETC.
v.
IBRAHIM HUSSENI TAMBOLI & OTHERS ETC.
•.
OCTOBER 31, 1988
B
[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.)
c
D
E
Civil Services: Food and Civil Supplies Department SholapurWhether part and parcel of Revenue Department-Inspecting
Officers-Status of
The appellants were promoted in January 1981 as Awai Karkuns
in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies; Sholapur. At the same
time, the private respondents holding those posts were directed to be
repatriated to their parent department, that is, the Revenue Department. The private respondents challanged these orders by way of a civil
suit on the ground that these orders were unjust, ille~al and violative of
Articles-14 and 16 of the Coustitution. The Civil Judge decreed the suit ..
The Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court upheld the decree.
· Tlte High Court came to the finding that the Food & Civil Supplies
Department, Sholapur, had no separate existence on the date .the
impugned order was passed and that it was part and parcel of the
Revenue Department.
It is contended by the private respondents that on the abolition of
the statutory rationing, the Food & Civil supplies Department was
abolished, and the appellants were absorbed in the Revenue Department. This contention is disputed by the apellants.
F
Allowing the appeals, it was,
HELD: (1) It was not disputed that after the introduction of
statutory rationing, the Food & Civil Supplies Department was an independent Government Department at Sholapur. l 7 lSG J
G
(2) It was wrong to assume that the Food & Civil Supplies
Department dealing with food and supply thereof, was abolished consequent on the abolition of the statutory rationing. [718D I
(3) The fact of introduction or abolition of statutory rationing
had nothing to do with the question of food and supply thereof, which
B
inust be dealt with by some department of the Government and after
I
S.S. KARMALKAR v. LS. TAMBOLI
713
the creation of the Food & Civil Snpplies Department, it was dealt with
by that Department. [7I8C]
( 4) As the Department existed, it conld be reasonably presumed
that it had its own staff and the appellant's contention that they
were retained in the Food & Civil Supplies Department seemed to be
correct. [718Ef
(5) There was no material in proof of the alleged absorption of the
appellants in the Revenue Department. Moreover, as they did not fulfil
the conditions for absorption in the Revenue Department, they could
not be transferred to or absorbed in that Department. [717C; 718H]
( 6) It is true that there was no order showing that the respondents
were transferred on deputation from the Revenue Department to the
Food & Civil Supply Department. It could, however, be reasonably
presumed that the respondents were sent on deputation to the Food &
Civil Supplies Department, otherwise there was no question of their
A
B
c
repatriation to their parent department. [718H; 719A]
D
(7) It was apparent from the fact that separate rules were framed for
recruitment of officers in the Food anil Civil Supplies Department and a
final gradation list was also prepared and published, that the Food and
Civil Supplies Department was not part and parcel of the Revenue
Department, but it had a separate and independent existence. [719G I
E
(8) As the appellants belonged to a different department, their
promotions would be governed by the rules of that department. Simi·
larly, the promotion of the private respondents would be considered in
accordance with the rules of the Revenue Department. [72IA]
Shri Atmaram Chaturvedi Garbade & Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., Special Civil Applications Nos. 707 of 1974 and
4834 of 197~Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3804
F
m~~~,
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.1987 of the Bombay
High Court in Second Appeal No. 404 of 1985, W.P. No. 607 of .1985
and Second Appeal No. 86 of 1986.
R.K. Garg, Vijay Hansaria and Sunil K. Jain for the Appellants.
H
A
B
c
D
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988) Supp. 3 S.C.R.
S.B. Bhasme, V.M. Tarkunde, A.S. Bhasme, V.N. Ganpule,
S.K. Agnihotri, A.G. Pawar and A.B. Lal for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DUTT, J. Special leave is granted in all these matters. Heard
learned Counsel for the parties.
The principal question that is involved in these appeals is somewhat peculiar. The question is whether the Food & Civil Supplies
Department, Sholapur, has a separate and independent existence or
whether it is part and parcel of the Revenue Department. The best
authority which can answer the question is the Government, but the
Civil Courts and the High Court have not been able to accept the
Government version that the Food & Civil Supplies Department,
Sholapur, is an independent Government Department and does not
form part of the Revenue Department. The facts leading to the question will be stated presently.
The Commissioner of Pune Division, by his order dated January
27, 1981, granted promotions to the appellants to the posts of Awai
Karkuns, and directed that the private respondents herein, who were
holding these posts would be repatriated to their parent department,
that is, the Revenue Department. Aggrieved by the said order of the
E
Commissioner, Pune Division, some of the private respondents filed a
civil suit for a declaration that the said order granting out of turn
promotions to the appellants as Awai Karkuns was unjust, illegal and
violative of the fundamental rights of the respondents guaranteed
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Construction of India. The learned
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sholapur, decreed the suit .and declared
. F
that the impugned order of the Commissioner, Pune Division, was
discriminatory, illegal and not binding upon the respondents. The
learned Civil Judge also granted an injunction permanently restraining
the Government from reverting the respondents from the posts of
Awai Karkuns to the posts of Clerks. On appeal, the Fourth Additional District Judge, Sholapur, upheld the judgment and decree of the
G
Civil Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants and
the State of Maharashtra. The appellants and the State of Maharashtra
filed two separate second appeals to the High Court of Bombay. In the
meantime, some of the respondents also filed writ petitions in the High
Court challenging the validity of the impugned order of the Commissioner, Pune Division. The High Court, by a common judgment, disH
posed of the second appeals and the writ petitions. The High Court
S.S. KARMALKAR v. I.S. TAMBOLI !DUTT, J.]
715
came to the finding that the Food & Civil Supplies Department,
Sholapur, had no separate existence on the date the impugned order
was passed, and that it was part and parcel of the Revenue Department. Upon that finding, the High Court dismissed the second appeals
and allowed the writ petitions of the respondents.
It is not disputed before us that before 1965, there was no such
Department as the Food & Civil Supplies Department at Sholapur.
Initially, the Agriculture, Food & Cooperation Department of the
Government was entrusted with the subject of food and the supply
thereof. By a circular dated January 13, 1965 of the Government of
Maharashtra, a new department called "the Civil Supplies Department" was created. By a subsequent Government circular dated May
13, 1965 it was renamed as "Food & Civil Supplies Department". It
appears from the said Government circular dated January 13, 1965,
creating the departm<l,[J.t, that the Agriculture, Food & Cooperation
Department was renamed as the Agriculture & Cooperation Department. In other words, the subject of food was withdrawn from the said
Department and a new Department, namely, the Civil Supplies
Department, subseq11ently renamed as Food & Civil Supplies Department, was created.
A
B
c
D
After the creation of the Food & Civil Supplies Department, the
statutory rationing was introduced in Sholapur City and Salgarwadi
area under the control of the Food & Civil Supplies Department which
E
will appear from the Government resolution dated February 19, 1966.
As a result of introduction of statutory rationing, several posts had to
be created in the establishment of the Controller of Rationing, which
was admittedly a part of the Food & Civil Supplies Department. Certain posts were also transferred from the Revenue Department to the
Food & Civil Supplies Department along with the holders of such
F
posts. The most significant fact in this regard is that the holders of the
posts had to be appointed afresh as personnel of the Food & Civil
Supplies Department, which will also appear from the Government
resolution dated February 19, 1966. It is not disputed that at the time,
that is to say, after the introduction of statutory rationing, the Food &
Civil Supplies Department was an independent Government DepartG
ment at Sholapur.
The statutory rationing was discontinued in Sholapur with effect
from May, 1, 1968. The posts in the rationing establishment were
1
directed to be merged in the office of the Foodgrain Distribution
Officer, Sholapur, and the expenditure on that account was directed to H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
A be debited to the budget head "26-Miscellaneous Department-Civil
Supplies Department .(iii) Procurement, Distribution and Price Control (b) Mofussil" and met from the grants sanctioned thereunder.
It is, however, not disputed that some of the rationing staff were
retrenched, some were absorbed in the Revenue Department and the
B remaining staff were directed to be merged in the office of the Foodgrain Distribution Officer, Sholapur, with effect from May 1, 1969. So
far as the appellants before us are concerned, they were not
retrenched, but according to the private respondents they were
absorbed in the Revenue Department. This has been emphatically
disputed by the appellants.
c
Mr. Tarkunde, learned Counsel appearing on behaif of the private respondents, has drawn our attention to a letter dated October
2?, 1969 written by the Foodgrain Distribution Officer, Sholapur, to
the Collector, Revenue Branch, Sholapur. In that letter, the Foodgrain Distribution Officer, Sholapur, requested the Collector to
D absorb the remaining staff of the rationing department, who were then
working in the Foodgrain Distribution Office. At this stage, it may be
mentioned that there is no dispute that both the Departments, namely,
th~ Food & Civil Supplies Department and the Revenue Department,
were under the District Collectorate. A list was attached to the said
letter dated October 25, 1969 of the Foodgrain Distribution Officer
E relating to absorption of rationing staff in the Revenue Department.
F
The list contains the names of the appellants and under column No. 7
of the list, it has been recorded that the appellants and other remaining
staff were willing to work in the Revenue Department. In view.of the
said letter of the Foodgrain Distribution Officer and the. list annexed
to his letter written to the Collector, it is submitted by the learned
Counsel, appearing on behalf of the private respondents, that the
appellants, were transferred to the Revenue Department as the Food &
Civil Supplies Department was abolished on the abolition of the statutory rationing.
It has been already noticed that some of the staff of the rationing
G establishment, who were not retrenched, were transferred to the office
of the Foodgrain Distribution Officer. According to the respondents,
the Foodgrain Distribution Office is under the Revenue Department,
while the appellants aver that it belongs to the Food & Civil Supplies
Department. In this regard, the most important say is that of the
Government. It is asserted on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that
H the Foodgrain Distribution Officer belongs to the Food & Civil Sup-
•
.:.,;.;
S.S. KARMALKAR v. I.S. TAMBOLI [DUTT, J.]
717
plies Department. The controversy in this respect can be easily resolA
ved by referring to the said letter dated October 25, 1969 of the Foodgrain Distribution Officer to the Collector, Revenue Branch. If the
Foodgrain Distribution Office belongs to the Revenue Department,
there was no necessity for the Foodgrain Distribution Officer to
request the Collector, Revenue Department, to absorb the unretrenched staff of the rationing establishment. Be that as it may, the quesB
tion that arises is whether the appellants were absorbed in the
Revenue Department. It ·is true that under column No. 7 of the list
annexed to the said letter dated October 25, 1969 of the Food grain
Distribution Officer, it has been recorded that the appellants and
other staff of the rationing establishment were willing to work in the
Revenue Department. There is, however, nothing to show that as a
C
matter of fact the appellants were transferred to the Revenue Department. The appellants might be willing to be absorbed in the Revenue
Department, but there is no ~aterial in proof of the alleged absorption
of the appellants in the Revenue Department. It is also not the case of
the State Government that the appellants were absorbed in the
Revenue Department. In the counter affidavit of the respondent
D
No. 1, it is stated as follows:
"That the District Collector of Solapur by his memorandum dated 17-4-1969 laid down the conditions of giving
alternative employment to the retrenched ex-civil supply
staffin Revenue Department. These conditions are:
E
(1) That the services in Revenue Department are
transferable throughout the district.
(2) That Revenue employees are required to pass
departmental examination within prescribed period.
F
(3) That to hold Awai Karkun's post Revenue
employee is required to pass revenue qualifying exam. in
addition to Sub-Service Department Examination."
It is clear from the statement extracted above that one of the
G
conditions for absorption was that the appellants were required to pass
the departmental examination within the prescribed period. Another
~
conditions was that one had to pass revenue qualifying examination in
addition to Sub-Service Department Examination for holding the post
of Awai Karkun in the Revenue Department. It is not disputed that
the appellants have not passed any of these examinations. This shows
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
A
that as they did not fulfil the conditions for absorption in the Revenue
Department, they could not be transferred to or absorbed in that
B
c
D
E
F
G
Department.
·
The High Court proceeded on the assumption that on the abolition of the statutory rationing, the Food & Civil Supplies Department,
Sholapur, also came to be absolished. Indeed, this is also the contention of the private respondents. Food is an important matter for
Government's consideration and it was the responsibility of the
Agriculture, Food & Cooperation Department before the creation of
the Food & Civil Supplies Department. The said Department was
renamed as 'Agriculture & Cooperation Department' inasmuch as
"food" was taken out of that Department and placed under the Food
& Civil Supplies Department. Thus, the fact of introduction or abolition of statutory rationing has nothing to do with the question of food
and supply thereof, which must be dealt with by some department of
the government and after the creation of the Food & Civil Supplies
Department, it was dealt with by that Department. It will be wrong to
assume that the Food & Civil Supplies Department dealing with food
and supply thereof, will be abolished consequent on the abolition of
the statutory rationing. In the counter affidavit of the State of
Maharashtra, affirmed by Shri Chandrasen Pandarinath Kamble, it
has been stated inter alia that in the State of Maharashtra there is a
system of Fair Price Shops and Household Card System in the areas
where statutory rationing system does not exist. This Fair Price Shops
and Household Card system undoubtedly comes under the control and
supervision of the Food & Civil Supplies Department-. As the Department existed, it can be reasonably presumed that it had its own staff
and the appellants' contention that they were retained in the F<.>0d &
Civil Supplies Department seems to be correct. Merely the fact of
giving of consent by the appellants to their absorption in the Revenue
Department, fails to persuade us to hold that the appellants were
absorbed in the Revenue Department, in 'the absence of any proper
material in that regard.
A question has, however, been raised on behalf of the private
respondents that if the Department of Revenue and the Food & Civil
Supplies Department are two differe°'t Departments of the Government, there is no material to show how the respondents came to hold
posts in the Food & Civil Supplies Department. It is true that there is
no order showing that the respondents were transferred on deputation
from the Revenue Department to the Food & Civil Supplies Department. In our opinion, in view of the facts and circumstances stated
S.S. KARMALKAR v. LS. TAMBOLI [DUTT, J.]
719
above, it can be reasonably presumed that the respondents were sent on
deputation to the Food & Civil Supplies Department, otherwise there
was no question of their repatriation to their parent department, that
is, the Revenue Department. There are other materials which would
also justify the finding that the Food & Civil Supplies Department and
the Department of Revenue are two independent and separate
Departments even after the abolition of statutory rationing.
A
B
The Governor of Maharashtra, by an order dated April 13, 1983,
framed rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India for regulating recruitment to the posts of Assistant Commissioner (Supply), District Supply Officer and Foodgrain Distribution
Officer Class-I under the Food & Civil Supplies Department of the C
Government of Maharashtra. Framing of these rules, proves two
things, namely, that the Food & Civil Supplies Department has independent and separate existence, and that the Foodgrain Distribution
Officer belongs to that Department. Another set of rules was framed
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the
notification dated May 21, 1984 for regulating recruitment to Class-II D
posts in the Food & Civil Supplies Department of the Government of
Maharashtra. The framing of these rules for regulating the recruitment
of officers in the Food & Civil Supplies Department supports the case
of the appellants and also of the Government that the Food & Civil
Supplies Department, Sholapur, is an independent Department. The
final gradation list of supply staff of directly recruited Clerks and
E
Godown Keepers was prepared and published. It is, however,
contended on behalf of the private respondents that the supply staff
belong to the Revenue Department. This contention is without any
substance. The words "supply staff", undoubtedly, refer to the supply
staff of the Food & Civil Supplies Department. The State Government
is justified in placing reliance upon the gradation list in support of its F
case that the Food & Civil Supplies Department is an independent and
separate Department.
It is, therefore, apparent from the above facts, particularly the
fact that separate rules were framed for recruitment of officers in the
Food & Civil Supplies Department and a final gradation list was also G
prepared and published, and the Food & Civil Supplies Department is
not part and parcel of the Revenue Department, but it has a separate
and independent· existence. This finding finds support from another
fact that the Revenue Department has its own gradation list of its
employees including the private respondents.
H
A
B
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
We may now deal with one more submission made on behalf of
the private respondents. Our attention has been drawn to a fact which
has also been noticed by the High Court, namely, that by a Government order issued to all Commissioners of Divisions, it was directed
that the posts of Inspecting Officers should be made .available to the
persons from the Revenue Department as well as from the Food &
Civil Supplies Department in the ratio of 75:25. It is submitted on
behalf of the private respondents that this Government order points to
the fact that both the Food & Civil Supplies Department and the
Revenue Department are one and the same Department at Sholapur.
We are unable to accept this contention. The Government order in
question, in our opinion, establishes the fact that the two Departments
are separate Departments of the Government. It has been already
C
noticed that some officers of the Revenue Department were holding
the posts in the Food & Civil Supplies Department, Sholapur, presumably on deputation and, hence, the ratio with regard to the posts of
Inspecting Officers, with which we are not concerned, had to be fixed.
D
If the two Departments were not separate Departments, there was no
necessity for mentioning the names of these two Departments in the
said order. It is not disputed that the posts of Inspecting Officers are
posts of the Food & Civil Supplies Department. The contention of the
private respondents based on the said Government order is, accordingly, rejected.
E
Before we conclude the judgment, we may refer to an unreported Bench decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in
Special Civil Applications Nos. 707 of 1974 and 4258 and 4834 of 1976
(Shri Atmaram Chaturji Garbade & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors.) disposed of on January 13, 1977 where it has been held that the
two departments are separate. It is, however, contended by
F
Mr. Tarkunde that the Nagpur Bench decision has no bearing on the
instant appeals before us as.it relates to the city of Nagpur and cantonment in Kampte where the Food & Civil Supplies Department was not
abolised. It, however, appeai:s that in .that decision, the Bench has
taken into consideration some comm·on documents. Be that as it may,
in the instant appeals, there are ample materials which justify the
G
conclusion that the rwo departments are not one and the same department but are two separate departments.
In the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the High Court
that the appellants are employees of the Revenue Department
inasmuch as after the abolition of the statutory rationing, the Food &
H
Civil Supplies Department was also abolished and the appellants were
..
'
S.S. KARMALKAR v. I.S. TAMBOLI [DUTT, J.]
721
absorbed in the Revenue Department. As the appellants belong to a
different department, their promotions will be governed by the rules
of that department. Similarly, the promotions of the private respondents will be considered in accordance with the rules of the Revenue
Department. We are told that after their repatriation to their parent
department all the private respondents were promoted to the posts of
Awai Karkuns.
·
A
B
For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the judgment of the High
Court as also of the trial court and that of the lower appellate court
ano dismiss the suit and the appeals. Tue writ petitions filed' in the
High Court are also dismissed. The instant appeals are allowed, but in
view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, there will be
C
no order as to costs.
R.S.S.
App.eals allowed.