Supreme Court of India
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus JIT SINGH
- Decided
- 22 July 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 792 · 1996 INSC 766
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.
p. 792, margin F
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court Punjab & Haryana made on March 9, 1994 in R.S.A. No. 114/93. The respondent, a work charged employee, had gone on leave from April 10, 1986. His service was terminated due to his overstay without due sanction of leave. A letter dated September 3, 1986 was communicated to him wherein it was stated that 10 days' time from August 25, 1986 was given to him to report for duty failing which his services "may be considered to have been terminated from the date of his absence and he may be informed accordingly through a. rcgistqed letter". In furtherance thereof, the letter of termination was addressed to the respondent. He filed the suit questioning the said letter.
pp. 792–793, margin F
Two contentions have been raised by the respondent, viz., that he \Vas a civil servant and that he \Vas entitled to an enquiry before tern1ination of his service and since it \Vas not done. the order \Vas invalid. He also stated that he had gone on leave with permission of the authorities and that, therefore, it cannot be said that he absented without authority of absence. We find that both the contentions are untenable.
p. 793, margin A
The Punjab Public Works Department Code would indicate that the Code would apply to the Work-charged Establishment of the Public Works Department, Roads and Building Department. The respondent was working in Irrigation Department. Rule 1. 132 indicates that a work-charged employee is not entitled lo any pension, leave, travelling allowance etc. He is liable lo be terminated under the Code by giving 10 days' notice as required in clause (7) of Rule l.129 of the Code. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the respondent is not a Government servant. Unless services arc regularised in accordance with law, his services remain to be of a \Vork-charged employee. He was terminated in accordance with the above procedure prescribed thereunder.
p. 793, margin C
1t would be seen that from May 1986 to August 19, 1986 the respondent remained absent from duly without any proper sanction of the Competent authority or grant of leave. The courts have proceeded on the premise that he was absent on leave for a short period of JO days. In fact, it is not so. The circumstances indicate that the courts below have not applied their minds in correct perspective, to the legal and factual aspects.
p. 793, margin E
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The suit of the respondent stands dismissed, but, in the circu1nstances without costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
p. 793, margin F