# UNION OF INDIA v. GURBA.KSH SINGH & ANOTIIER

- **Citation:** [1975] 3 S.C.R. 444
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-02-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1968
- **Bench:** K. K. Mathew, P. N. Bhagwati, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-v-gurba-ksh-singh-anotiier-6413
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Displaced Pcrsoris (.Compe11sa1ion a11d R~lwbilitai/on) A.ct, 1954 and Ge11ernl
Clause& Act (IO of 1891) S. 16, and Const/1111/on of India 1950, Art. 310(1)-
l'ost of Asstt. Commissioner tmder 195-4 Act-Whether services of lnwmlm1:
cordd b~ tmn/11at~d by State Goi•ernmmt.
Under s. 3( l) of lhe Di11placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act, 195,, tho post of Assistant. Settlement Commissioner i~ a post und,1:r th~
Union of India to which the appointment is to be made by the Central G1ivern ·
nwnt.
In exercise of this power the Central Government appointed the first rc1;ponJcnt ro the po3t by order dated 3rd September, 1955. Since the post was emailed
by tho President of India only for a period of 6 months the san~tion for lh·1~ po•I
came to llll end on 29th February 1956. The first respondent, however, continued to function on the basis of sanction to il~ continuance given by th~ Siak
Government. Thereafter, by an order dated 17th April, 1956, the State Government purported to terminate the services of the first respondent with immediate
effect. After some correspondence, on February 18, 1959, the Central Government issued a memorandum that on the expiry of the period of one month given
in the earlier memorandum of January 18, 1959 his services stood krmcnated
with effect from February 18, 1959. The respondent filed a suit against the
Central and the State Governmeal' contending that both their orders terminating bis serviceR were illegal and invalid and for recovery of arrears o[ salary
and allowances. The trial con:t dismissed the suit. Iu appeal to the High
Court, he contended that his se.n•ice was validly terminated only by the memorandum dated !8th January 1959, is:<ued by the Central Government, am! th .. 1
he was therefore entitled to arrears of salary and allowances upto 18th Fcbn1
ary, 1959. This contention was accepted by the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court.
HELD : The Central Government alone could terminate the appointment
both as the appointing authority us :1lso under Art. 310( I) of the Constitution.
[451 HJ
:\
B
D
(a) Tho Stat'~ Government had no power to make the appointment t1.l Ilic
F
ria&t unles.q such power wa~ conferred upon it by virtue of a direction given
by the Central Government under s. 34, but there W!!S no such direction in the
present case. The Central Government ool:i empowered the State Government
to nominat" the persoti to be npoointed 'to th~ post bat the appoinlme1:t of th~
rierson so nomi.nated could only be made and, in fact, was made by th~ C(·ntn1l
Government by its order dated 3rd fieptcmber, 195S. [450 D•Fl
(b) Tho State Government's order date<! !st December, 1955 purporting to
appoint tho first t'C!IPOndcnt was roe~ly a forn1al nppolntmeut letter pursuunit to
(;
tho suggestion of the Central Government.
It had no legal consequence r.incc
hy that ti.roe the first r~pondent was already appointed to the post. (450 Gl
(c) Moreover. the post was sanctioned by the President of India and cm1tecl
h) the Central Government and the whole of the expenditure in connection with
it was to be borne out of funds allocated by the Central Government.
Th~
State Government's order pnrporting to acoord sanction to the creation of ;he
post was only for the purpose of reg'Jfarising its mm accounlq procednre in
di,bursing the amount allocated by the C.cntral Government. [450 H-451 BJ
H
(d) When the questiocr regarding the issne of pay slip in favour of the
li.fst respondent for the pc•riod subsequent to 29th February, 195fi, arose,
th~
;\ccountant General of !~ State pointed out that the sanction to the continuance
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
UNION v. GURBAKSH SINGH (Bhagwati, !.)
H5
?f the post aiven by the State Government was. meaningless and ineffective and
ii could not be acted upon until receipt ot sanction to its continuancy from the
Central Government. [451 C-D)
Therefore, the Central Government, which was the appointing authority
could terminate the service of the first respondent un

## Text

444
UNION OF INDIA
V.
GURBA.KSH SINGH & ANOTIIER
February 5, 1975
[K. K. MATHEW, P. N. BHAGWATI,
AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ]
Displaced Pcrsoris (.Compe11sa1ion a11d R~lwbilitai/on) A.ct, 1954 and Ge11ernl
Clause& Act (IO of 1891) S. 16, and Const/1111/on of India 1950, Art. 310(1)-
l'ost of Asstt. Commissioner tmder 195-4 Act-Whether services of lnwmlm1:
cordd b~ tmn/11at~d by State Goi•ernmmt.
Under s. 3( l) of lhe Di11placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act, 195,, tho post of Assistant. Settlement Commissioner i~ a post und,1:r th~
Union of India to which the appointment is to be made by the Central G1ivern ·
nwnt.
In exercise of this power the Central Government appointed the first rc1;ponJcnt ro the po3t by order dated 3rd September, 1955. Since the post was emailed
by tho President of India only for a period of 6 months the san~tion for lh·1~ po•I
came to llll end on 29th February 1956. The first respondent, however, continued to function on the basis of sanction to il~ continuance given by th~ Siak
Government. Thereafter, by an order dated 17th April, 1956, the State Government purported to terminate the services of the first respondent with immediate
effect. After some correspondence, on February 18, 1959, the Central Government issued a memorandum that on the expiry of the period of one month given
in the earlier memorandum of January 18, 1959 his services stood krmcnated
with effect from February 18, 1959. The respondent filed a suit against the
Central and the State Governmeal' contending that both their orders terminating bis serviceR were illegal and invalid and for recovery of arrears o[ salary
and allowances. The trial con:t dismissed the suit. Iu appeal to the High
Court, he contended that his se.n•ice was validly terminated only by the memorandum dated !8th January 1959, is:<ued by the Central Government, am! th .. 1
he was therefore entitled to arrears of salary and allowances upto 18th Fcbn1
ary, 1959. This contention was accepted by the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court.
HELD : The Central Government alone could terminate the appointment
both as the appointing authority us :1lso under Art. 310( I) of the Constitution.
[451 HJ
:\
B
D
(a) Tho Stat'~ Government had no power to make the appointment t1.l Ilic
F
ria&t unles.q such power wa~ conferred upon it by virtue of a direction given
by the Central Government under s. 34, but there W!!S no such direction in the
present case. The Central Government ool:i empowered the State Government
to nominat" the persoti to be npoointed 'to th~ post bat the appoinlme1:t of th~
rierson so nomi.nated could only be made and, in fact, was made by th~ C(·ntn1l
Government by its order dated 3rd fieptcmber, 195S. [450 D•Fl
(b) Tho State Government's order date<! !st December, 1955 purporting to
appoint tho first t'C!IPOndcnt was roe~ly a forn1al nppolntmeut letter pursuunit to
(;
tho suggestion of the Central Government.
It had no legal consequence r.incc
hy that ti.roe the first r~pondent was already appointed to the post. (450 Gl
(c) Moreover. the post was sanctioned by the President of India and cm1tecl
h) the Central Government and the whole of the expenditure in connection with
it was to be borne out of funds allocated by the Central Government.
Th~
State Government's order pnrporting to acoord sanction to the creation of ;he
post was only for the purpose of reg'Jfarising its mm accounlq procednre in
di,bursing the amount allocated by the C.cntral Government. [450 H-451 BJ
H
(d) When the questiocr regarding the issne of pay slip in favour of the
li.fst respondent for the pc•riod subsequent to 29th February, 195fi, arose,
th~
;\ccountant General of !~ State pointed out that the sanction to the continuance
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
UNION v. GURBAKSH SINGH (Bhagwati, !.)
H5
?f the post aiven by the State Government was. meaningless and ineffective and
ii could not be acted upon until receipt ot sanction to its continuancy from the
Central Government. [451 C-D)
Therefore, the Central Government, which was the appointing authority
could terminate the service of the first respondent under s. 16 General Clause~
Act, 1897. [451 G]
-
'
'
(e) There is no provision under which the State Government could h~ve the
power to determine the appointment as Assistant Settlement Commlss10ner made
by the Central Government under s. 3. The person appointed would hold the
post durina the pleasure of the President and only the Central Government
would lie entitled to terminate it. [451 G·HJ
The High Court was, therefore, ril!ht in taking the view that the order of tho
State Government dated April 17, 1956, was ineffectual and invalid and that
the service of the first respondent was· validly terminated only on Feoruary 18,
1959, by the Central Government. [452 A-BJ
S. R. Tiwari v. Dr. Board, .-4:ra [1964] 3 S.C.R. 55, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1968.
From the judgment and order dated the January 16, 1967 of the
Punjab & Haryana Hi~h Court in Civil Regular Firsi Appeal No.
324 of 1961.
R. N. Sachthry, for the appellant.
Harbans Singh, !or respondent No. 1.
The JudiltJ.ent of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J.
TLe questio~ that arises for determination in this
appeal is as to which authority was entitled to terminate the service
of the first respondent-tho Central Government or the Government
of Punjab.
The firs• respondent was, prior to his appointment as an Assistant
Settlement Commissioner, holdin1 the post
of
Deputy
Registrar,
Land Record in a temporary capacity under the State ot Punjab. The
first respondent had no lien on any permanent post and was a _temporary servant of tho Punjab Government. On the coming into force of
the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
(hereiniaft.er refeired to as the Act) it became necessary to appoint
officers and staff in tho Stato of Punjab for the purpose of carrying
out various functions and duties under the Act. One of such fl!nctions
and duties was grant of proprietory rights to quasi permanent allottees of agricultural land ar4d houses in the rural areas in the State of
Punjab. The President of India, therefore, sanctioned the creation
of certain posts-which included two .posts of Assistant Dir~ctor to
be designated as Assistant Settlement C'.onunissioner under ·the Actfor a period of six months from the date of promulgation of the
Rules framed under the Act "for the work connected with the conversion of quasi-permanent allotee,, into permanent
ones" and the
Central Government, by its Jetter dated 18th April, 1955 conveyed
this sanction to the State Go•ernment. This letter contained a direction that tho O'fer-all oxpenditurc in connection with these posts
14-423SCI\75
..
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 197 5] 3 S.C.R.
sanctioned by the President of India should not exceed Rs. 6.50 lacs
and it would be shared between the Central Government · and the
State Government in the ratio of 50-50. It was also suggested in
this letter that the names of officers appointed as Assistant Directors
and Naib Tehsildars should be intimated in due course for issue of
necessary notifications under the provisionf of the Act. The
State
Government, by its letter dated 3rd July, 1955, pointed out to the
Central Goverament that having regard to the large magnitude
of
the work involved, it would be necessary to have two whole-time
officers exclusively devoted to this work and suggested that two posts
should, therefore, be permitted to be created, one of a Deputy Secretary "who would have administrative control over all the mana,1iing
officers and settlement officers and the staff appointed in connc.o::tion
with the conferment of permanent rights" and the other of an A1~~is
tant Settlement Commissioner. It appears that the Central Gov1:~r ....
ment in the mean1ime reconsidered its
earlier decision
that
the
expenditure on the posts in connection with the grant of proprietory
rights to quasi-permanent allottees should be borne 50-50 between
the Central Government and the S•ate Government and by 'ts letter
dated 20th July, 1955 intimated to the State Government that the
C'.-enfral Government would bear the entire expenditure on the staff
appointed to these po~ts on condition that "the staff in question will
be engaged for a period of six months only". The Central Gove:rnment thereafter, by its fotter dated 23rd July, 1955 conveyed the sanction of the President of India to the creation of one post· of Additional
Settlement Commissioner and one post of Assistant Settlement C{llllimissioner "for a period of six months for the work connected \vith
the conversion of quasi-permanent allotments into permanent ones
on the scale of pay noted against each plus usual allowances admissible to the State Government employees of their status". We are corn-·
cerned in this appeal with the J'OSt of Assistan't Set'lement Commissioner sanctioned by the President of . India as mentioned in
this
letter dated 23rd July, 1955.
Though the order of appointment of the first respondent to the
post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner was not yet passed,
the
first respondent relinquished charge of his post of Deputy Registrar,
Land Record and assumed charge of the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner on the forenoon of 1st August, 1955 as appears
from the certificate dated 1st August, 1955 (E'x. D-1). The Central
Government thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub
section ( 1) of section 3 of the Act, issued a notification dated 3rd
September, 1955 appointin,g the first respondent to the post of Assist3nt Settlement Commissioner "for the purpose of performing the
functions assigned to an Assistant Settlement Commissio•er by or under
the Act". The O~ntral Government also issued another notification
of the same date in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section
( 1) of sedtion 3 of the Act directing inter alia that the first respon•
dent: who has been a'ppoint~. under that sub-section to the post of
Ass1stan;. Settlement Comm1ss1oner, shall
perform
the
functions
assigned to an Assimnt Settlement Commissioner by or under the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
UNION V; GURBAKSH SINGH (Bhagwati, /.)
447
Act "only in respect of agricultural land situated in the State
of
Punjab in rural area as defined in clause (f) of rule 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, including houses, if any, in any such area allotted along with
such
lands". A copy of the notification dated 3rd September, 1955 appointing the first respondent to the post of Assistant Settlement Commissiorn~r was forwarded by the Central Government to the State Government along with its letter dated 3/7th September, 1955. The
Central Government also addressed a let'ter dated 21st September
1955 !0 the State Government pointing out that since the 1st Respondent was to work as a whole time Assistant Settlement Commissioner,
it was presumed that he had relinquished charge of his previous office
and adding that the first respondent having already been notified as
an Assistant settlement Commissioner and a copy of the relevant
notification having bee~ forwarded to the State Government along
with the let'Ler dated 3rd/7th September, 1955, "formal appointment
letter" may be issued by the State Government and copies endorsed
to this Ministry".
·
1
It appears that 'the Governor of Punjab also, by an order dated
30th November, 1955, sanctioned the
creation
of certain posts
which included one post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner "for
~ix mon'ths. connected with the conferment of permanent ownership
rights OI'i quasi-permanent al!ottees of the land in the Rehabilitation
Department with effect from forenoon of 1st August, 1955". Thernafter, on 1st December, 11155 the Governor of Punjab issued an order
appointing the first respondent as Assistant Settlement Commissioner
"against the temporary post created in the Rehabilitation
Department for the work connected with the conferment of permanent
ownership rights on the quasi-permanent allottees of evacuee lands
for ;i period of six months with effect from the 1st of August, 1955".
The State Government, by its letter dated 15th
December,
1955
intimated to the Central Government
that
the
first
respondent,
appointed as Assistant Settlement Commissioner, had been given the ·
scale of pay as sanctioned by the Central Government and confirmed
that the first respondent was working as a whole itime Assistant Settle•
ment Commissioner.
The first respondent accordingly held the post of Assistant Settle·
ment Commissioner and carried out the functions and duties attoached
to that post.
Since the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner
was created by the President of India only for a period of six months
and the first respondent was appointed to that post by the Central ·
Government on September 1955, the sanction for the post obviously came to an end on 20th February,
1956.
The first respondent,
however, confamed to function as Assist•ant Settlement Commissioner
on the basis of sanction to the continuance of the post given by the
Government of Punjab.
The Accountant General, Punjab took the
view that the post of Assisstant Settlement Commissioner held
by
the first responde·at having been created by the Central Government,
the sanction to the continuance of the post received from the ·Punjab
Government was futile and could not be acted upon until receipt or
448
SUPREME CfOURT REPORTS
(1975] 3 S.C.R.
sanction from the Central Govern_roent, and by his letter dated 21st
April, 1956, poi'flted out to the State Government that the pay slip
in favour of the first respondent for the period from 18th January,
1956 to 29th February, 1956 was being issued, but so far as the) pay
for the subsequent period upto 30th April, 1956 was concerned, "the
sanction to the. continuance of the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner upto 30.4.1956 which has bee~ received in this office from the
Assistant Secretary to the Govemmen~ of Punjab, Finance De:part·
ment will be acted upon on receipt of "Sanction" from the Government
of India as the post was created by them" and an attested copy of
the same, if received, "may please be sent to enable this office to issue
a pay slip to the officer upto 30-4-1956". In the meantime, however,
the Government of Punj•ab, by an order dated 17th April, 1956, purported to termi,1ate the service of the first respondent with immediate
effect and direded that the first respondent would be paid one month's
salary in lieu of notice..
The first respondent thereafter made several
representations to the Central Government as well as to the State
Government contending inta alia that he Vv'JS an employee 0i.
the
Central Government and the State Government was not entitled to
terminate his service and the order of termination of his service passed
by the State Government was, therefore, invalid. There was no res·
ponse to these representations for a long time.
It was Jnly on 10th
January, 1959 that the Central Government issued a memorandum
informing the first respondent that "he was not a servant of the Gov~:rtl
ment of India and that, eTen in case he considered himself to be
such, this memorandum should be treated as a notice terminating his
service~ "without prejudice to the contention that ho was not the
Government of India's servant." The Cent.ml Government also issued
another memorandum on 18th February, 1959 intimating to the first
respondent that on the el!piry of the period of one month given. in
the earlier memorandum dated 10th January, 1959, his service stood
terminated with effect from 18th February 1959.
The first respondent thereupon gave notices to the Central Government as well as the State Government under section 80 of the Code
of Civil Procedure and filed a suit ai;ainst the Union of India and the
State of Punjab in the Court of th.:: Senior Sub-Judge, Jullundur claiming
a declaration that the order of the State Government dated 17th Apr!!.
1956 as also the order of the Central Government dated 10th January,
1959 terminating the services of the first respondent were illegal a.nd
invalid ao.id the first respondent continued as an Assistant Settlem1~nt
Commissioner in the service of the Central Government and praying,
for recovery of arrears ol' salary and allowances from 21st April, 1956
being the date on which he was relieved of the office of Assistant
Settlement Commissioner. Both the Union of India as well as the
State of Punjab resisted the suit.
The commmi defence put forward
by them was that the first respondent was a servant of the Government
of Punjab and b1~ing a te:mporary servant, the Government of Punjab
was entitled to terminate his service on giving one month's notice of
salary in lieu of notice and his service was, therefore, rightly terminated by the order of the Government of Punjab dated 17th April,
1956. The Trial Court accepted this defence of the Union of India
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
A
i8
c
D
E
F
•.G
H
UNION V, GURBAKSH SINGH (Bhagwati, J.)
449
and the State of Punjah a'ad dismissed suit of the first respondent with
costs.
The first respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana.
The only contention put forward on behalf of
the first respondent at the hearing of the appeal was that the first respondent was servant of the Uaion of India and not of the State of
Punjab and the order dated 17th April, 1956 passed by the State of
Punjab was, therefore, ineffectual to terminate the service of the first
respondent and it was only on 18th February, 1959 that his service
was validly terminated by the Central Government by its memorandum
dated 10th January, 1959 and he was accordingly entitled to arrears
of salary and allowances from 21st April, 1956 to 10th February,
1959. This contention found favour with the High Court and taking
the view that the first respondent was a servant of the Union of India
oand not of the State of Punjab, the High C'Jurt held that his service
was validly terminated only from 10th February, 1959 under the
memorandum of the Central Govemme~t dated 10th January, 1959
anq accordingly passed a decree in favour of the first respondent against
the Union of India for Rs. 22,927.34P. representing >arrears of salary
and allowances from 4th August, 1956, beh1g the date three years
prior to the institution of the suit upro 10th February, 1959. The
Union of India being aggrieved by the decree passed against it preferred the present appeal in the Court on certificate obtain~ under Article
13 3 (1) (a) of the Constitution as it stood at the material time.
As in the High Court, so also Q.efore us the only question debated
was as to whether it was the Central Government or the State Government or the State Government which was entitled to terminate the
service ·of the first respondent.
The first respondent did not contend
that the termination of his service was by way of penalty and though
it was disguised as termination simpliciter, it was in reality and substa'J.ce dismissal and hence violative of Article 311 ( 2) of .the Constitution.
He conceded that if the· State Government was entitled to
terminate his service, the order dated 17th April, 1956, passed by the
Government of Punjab, would be valid.
But his contention was that
'the Central Government alone was competent to terminate his service
·and he was,,, therefore, cO'ntinued 11s an Assistant Settlement Commissioner until 10 February, 1959 when his service was terminated by
the Central Government by the memorandum dated 10th January,
1959. The.Union of India, on the other hoand, contended that the
first respondent was a serva1at of the State of Punjab and hence the
Government of Punjab was entitled to terminate his service as it did
by passing the order dated 17th April, 1956.
Now, if we !00k at the provisions of the ACt, it is clear that it is
the Central Government which is constituted the ultimate authority
responsible for the administration of the provisions of the Act.
There
is a heirarchy of officers constituted under the Act for the puqiose of
dischargi
1ag various functions and duties and the final revisional autrority in respect of these functions and duties is vested in the Central
Government.
Section 3, sub-section ( 1) confers power on the Central Governm~nt to appoint "a Chief Settlement Commissioner, a Joint
450
SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS
[1975) 3 S.C.R.
Chief Settlement Commissioner, and M many Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioners, Settlement Commissioners, Additional Settlement
Commissioners; Assistant Settlement Commissioners, Settlement Offi.·
cers, Assis~ant Settlement Officers and managing officers as may be
necessary for the purpose of performing the functions assigned to them
"by or under the. Act and the Central Govemment is also given the
power by general· or special order to provide for the
distribution
or allocation of work to be performed by them under the Act
The
post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner--that being the po!;t with
which we are concerned in this appeal-is, therefore, clearly a
post
under the Union of India to which appoi'i1tment is to be made by the
Central Government.
It was in exercise of this power conferred by
section 3, sub-section (1) that Central Government appointed the first
respondent to the post of Assistant Settlement Commissim1er by its
order dated 3rd September, 1956. The Government of Punjab had
no power to make appointment to the post of Assistant Settlement
Commissioner by its order dated 3rd September, 1955.
The Govern·
ment of Punjab had no power to make appointment to the post of
Assista'.at Settlement Commissioner, unless such power was conferred
upon it by virtue of a dim;tion given by the Central Government under
section 34, but admittedly there was no such direction in the present
case. In fact, the Central Government, by its letter dated 18ili April,
1955 requested the State Government to intimate "the •aames of officers appointed as A.ssistant Settlement Commissioner" for issue of
necessary notification under the Act.
The Central Government did
empower the State Government tG nominate the pe~son to be appointed
to the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner but the appointment
of the person so nominated could only be made and was in fact made
by the Central Government by its order dated 3rd September, 195S.
Once the appointment of the first respondent as Assistant Settlement
Commissioner was made by the Central Government by its order dated
3rd September, 1955, there was no question thereafter of the State
Government once again appointing him to the same post. The State
Government, no doubt, by its order dated lst December, 1955, purpoted to appoint the first respondent as Assistant Settlement Commissioner, but that was merely a formal "appointment letter" persuant to
the suggestion contained in the letter of the Central Government dated
21st September, 1955. It was an ineffectual and futile exercise which
had no legal consequence since by that time the first respondent was
already appointed to the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner
by the Central Government legaUy competent so to appoint and he was
already functioning as such Assistant Settlement Commissioner. Moreover. the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner, to which
the
first respondent was so appointed, was a post sanctioned by the President of India and created by the Central Government and the whole of
the expenditure in connection with that post was to be borne out of the
funds allocated by the Central Government, vide the letter of the Central Government dated 23rd July, 1955. It is true that the State Government also, by its order dated 30th November, 1955, purpo;ted to
accord sanction to the creation of one post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner, but iliat was obviously for the purpose of regularising its
own accounts procedure because ilie amount of Rs. 6.50 lacs for meetA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
:·\
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
UNION v. GURBAK'.SH SINGH (Bhagwati, J.)
HI
ing the expenc!iture in connection with the staff for this work was made
available by the Central Government to the State Government and it
was the Stiite Government which was to disburse the expe11.diture
out of that amoU'at.
The post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner
having already been created by the Central Government by the sanction
of the President of India as conveyed under the lette~ -<lated 23rd July,
1955, did not need validation from the order of the Government or
Punjab dated 30th November, 1955. In fact, when
the
question
arose in regard to issue of pay slip in favour of the first respondent for
the period subsequent to 29th February, 1956, when the original
sanction of the President of India for the post of Assistant Settlement
Commissioner expired, the Account':mt General, Punjab pointed out
in his letter dated 21st April, 1956 that the sanction to the continuance
of the post given by the Punjab Government was meaningless and
ineffective and it could not be acted upon until receipt of sanction to
the continuance of the po:;t from the Central Government since "the
post was created by them." It would therefore, be seen that the post -
of Assistant Settlement Commissioner was created by the
Central
Government and the expeaditure in connection with it was to be met
out of the funds provided by the Central Government and it was the ·
Central Government alone which was competent to make appointment
to the post and in fact, the first respO'adent was appointed to the post
by the Central Government by its order dated 3rd September, 1956. It
this be the correct .position, as it undeniable is, there can be no doubt
that the Central Government alone could terminate the service of the
first respondent. It is 1,1ow a well settled rule of interpretation that a
power to appoint ordinarily implies a power to determine the employment.
That was pointed out by this Court in S. R. Tiwari v. District
Board, Agra(!) :
"Power to appoint ordinarily carries with it the power to
determine appointment, and a power to terminate may in the
absence of restrictions express or implied be exercised, subject to the conditions prescribed in that behalf,
by the
authority competent to appoint."
This rule is also foU'nd incorporated in section 16 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897. It is, therefore, clear that the Central ;Government which
is given the power to make appointment to the post of Assistant Settlement Commissioner under section 3, would also have the power to
determine the appointment.
The Central Government
would
also
be entitled to terminate the appoi'atrnent, since the post of Assistant
Settlement Commissioner is a post under the Union of India and the
person appointed to it would hold it during the pleasure of the Presi- ·
dent.
There is no provision under which the Government of Punjab
could have the power to determi'i.1e the appointment as Assistant Settlement Commissioner madei by the Central Government under section 3.
The Central Government alone could terminate the appointment, both
as the appointing authority as also under Art. 310(1) of the Consti-
(1) [1964] 3 S. C.R. 55.
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 3 S.C.R.
tution.
The High Court was, therefore, right in taking the view that
the order of the Punjab Government dated 17th April,
1956 was
ineffectual and invalid and the service of the first respondent as Assistant Settlement Commissioner was validly terminated only on 10th
February, 1959 whe'il the Central Government, by its memorandum
dated 10th January, 1959, gave notice terminating the service of the
first respondent. . There was no dispute before us that if the s1!rvice
of the first respondent came to an end on 10th February, 1959, and
not earlier on 17th April, 1956, the first respondent would be entitled
to a sum of Rs. 22,927.34P. as decreed by the High Court.
The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs in favour
of the first respondent.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
A