Case Note & Summary
This appeal by special leave arose from an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated March 9, 1994, passed in R.S.A. No. 114 of 1993. The dispute centered on the validity of termination of services of a work-charged employee in the Irrigation Department of the State of Punjab. The respondent, Jit Singh, had gone on leave from April 10, 1986, and his services were terminated because he overstayed without due sanction of leave. The termination process began with a communication dated September 3, 1986, which stated that ten days' time from August 25, 1986 was given to him to report for duty, failing which his services would be considered terminated from the date of absence and he would be informed through a registered letter. A termination letter was subsequently issued. The respondent filed a suit challenging the termination. He raised two contentions: first, that he was a civil servant entitled to an enquiry before termination, and second, that he had gone on leave with permission of the authorities and therefore could not be treated as absent without authority. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Punjab Public Works Department Code. It noted that the Code applied to work-charged establishments of the Public Works Department, Roads and Building Department, while the respondent was working in the Irrigation Department. Rule 1.132 of the Code provided that a work-charged employee is not entitled to any pension, leave, travelling allowance, etc. The Court held that the respondent was not a government servant. Unless his services were regularised in accordance with law, he remained a work-charged employee. The termination had been effected in accordance with the procedure prescribed under clause (7) of Rule 1.129 of the Code, which required giving ten days' notice. The Court observed that from May 1986 to August 19, 1986, the respondent remained absent from duty without any proper sanction of the competent authority or grant of leave. It found that the courts below had proceeded on the incorrect premise that the respondent was absent on leave for a short period of ten days, when in fact that was not the case. The Supreme Court held that both contentions raised by the respondent were untenable and that the lower courts had not applied their minds in the correct perspective to the legal and factual aspects. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the suit of the respondent was dismissed without costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Work-Charged Employee Status - Work-Charged Employee Not a Civil Servant - Punjab Public Works Department Code, Rule 1.132 and Rule 1.129 clause (7) - The respondent was a work-charged employee in the Irrigation Department; under Rule 1.132, such employees are not entitled to pension, leave, or travelling allowance; held that unless services are regularized, the employee remains a work-charged employee and is liable to termination by giving 10 days' notice under Rule 1.129(7). B) Service Law - Termination Procedure - Termination for Unauthorized Absence Valid - Punjab Public Works Department Code, Rule 1.129 clause (7) - The respondent remained absent from May 1986 to August 19, 1986 without sanction; the letter dated September 3, 1986 granted 10 days to report for duty; held that termination followed the prescribed procedure and was valid, and the suit was dismissed without costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a work-charged employee under the Punjab Public Works Department Code is a civil servant entitled to an enquiry before termination of service; whether termination for unauthorized absence was valid under Rule 1.129 clause (7) of the Code
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; suit of the respondent dismissed without costs. The termination of the respondent's services as a work-charged employee was upheld as valid under the Punjab Public Works Department Code.
Law Points
- Work-charged employee is not a government servant
- not entitled to pension/leave/travelling allowance
- liable to termination by 10 days' notice under Rule 1.129(7) of Punjab Public Works Department Code
- regularization required for government servant status
- unauthorized absence not protected
