Supreme Court Allows Appellant in Service Matter Due to Erroneous Reversion Order. Promotion to Finance Officer Valid as Post Created Under Unamended Provisions of Section 27 of U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his reversion from the post of Finance Officer to Accounts Officer by the State Government. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the post of Finance Officer was not created in accordance with Section 27 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, as prior approval from the State Government was not obtained. The appellant contended that the post was created in 1978 under the unamended provisions of the Act, which did not require such approval. The State Government argued that the amended provisions, which came into effect in 1983, necessitated prior approval for the creation of posts. The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 27, noting that the post was indeed created under the unamended provisions, which allowed the Jal Sansthan to create posts without prior approval. The court held that the High Court erred in relying on the amended provisions, which were not applicable at the time of the post's creation. Consequently, the court found no infirmity in the appellant's promotion to Finance Officer and set aside the reversion order. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was granted without any order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Promotion Validity - Legality of Promotion to Finance Officer - U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975, Section 27 - The court found that the post of Finance Officer was created under the unamended provisions of Section 27, which did not require prior approval of the State Government, thus the promotion was valid. The reliance on amended provisions by the High Court was erroneous as they were not applicable at the time of creation of the post. Held that the reversion order was unsustainable (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the promotion of the appellant to the post of Finance Officer was valid under the provisions of Section 27 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the State Government dated 18.9.1992 and the consequential order of Jal Sansthan dated 28.9.1992, allowing the writ petition and reinstating the appellant as Finance Officer.

Law Points

  • Promotion legality
  • Government approval
  • Creation of posts
  • Section 27 U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act
  • 1975
  • Amended provisions interpretation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1998 LawText (SC) (09) 4

1998-09-02

Sujata V. Manohar, G.B. Pattanaik

V.A. Mohta

Yogesh Chandra Joshi

State of U.P. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging reversion from Finance Officer to Accounts Officer.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to challenge the legality of the reversion order.

Filing Reason

Reversion order issued by the State Government.

Previous Decisions

High Court dismissed the writ petition stating the post was not created legally.

Issues

Validity of promotion under Section 27 Requirement of Government approval for post creation

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the post was created under unamended provisions not requiring approval. State contended that the amended provisions necessitated prior approval for the promotion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the creation of the post of Finance Officer was valid under the unamended provisions of Section 27, which did not require prior approval from the State Government, thus the promotion was lawful.

Judgment Excerpts

The post of Finance Officer not having been created in consonance with the provisions of Section 27... The High Court committed serious error in relying upon the amended provisions...

Procedural History

The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the reversion order, which was dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975: Section 27
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appellant's Infringement Suit Against Respondent Over Deceptively Similar Trade Mark. Addition of 'India' to Infringing Mark 'Rustam' Found Ineffective Under Trade Marks Act, 1940, Section 21.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal, Sets Aside Appellate Decree, and Remands Suit for Fresh Trial Due to Erroneous Rejection of Adjournment and Unexplained Delay in Pronouncing Judgment. Denial of Opportunity to Lead Evidence and Non-Compliance w...