Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of services of a judicial officer who had been appointed temporarily as Judge of the District Council Court for the Autonomous District of United Khasi-Jaintia Hills. The autonomous district was constituted on 26 January 1950 under Article 244 and the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, and the Governor of Assam was empowered to administer it. The Assam Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 came into force on 15 October 1951, and a District Council and Executive Committee were constituted on 27 June 1952. The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 were framed by the District Council with the approval of the Governor; Rule 9 provided for a District Council Court and appointment of Judges by the Executive Committee with the approval of the Governor. No rules were framed under Rule 15 of the 1951 Rules to regulate conditions of service, so the Assam Fundamental Rules, subsidiary rules and instructions applied. The respondent, an Additional District Judge in the senior grade of the Assam Judicial Service, was appointed temporarily as Judge of the District Council Court with effect from 7 January 1954 without the Governor's approval; the Governor separately appointed him as an Additional District Judge for Lower Assam. On 16 February 1957, the respondent attained the age of 55 years, the age of superannuation under Fundamental Rule 56. The District Council nonetheless continued him in service and by order dated 22 April 1965 placed him in the regular scale of Rs. 1200-60(EB)-60-1500 with effect from 1 April 1965. The Executive Committee later terminated his services with effect from 31 August 1966. The respondent challenged this termination by way of a writ petition in the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, which apparently ruled in his favour. The appellants, representing the District Council, appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The main legal issues were whether the respondent became a permanent employee by being placed in a regular scale of pay under the definition of permanent post in Assam Fundamental Rule 9(22), and whether his continuation beyond superannuation and subsequent termination without Governor's approval were valid. The appellants contended that the respondent's appointment was temporary and never confirmed, and that after attaining superannuation age he could not be retained without government sanction. The respondent argued that placement in a regular scale made him permanent, and that the Governor's earlier investment of powers for Scheduled Districts and Lower Assam validated his continuation. The Supreme Court held that a temporary employee does not become permanent merely by being placed in a different pay scale; permanency requires confirmation. Under Fundamental Rule 56, compulsory retirement occurred at age 55, and retention beyond that age required government sanction, which was admittedly not given. Even if the initial appointment without Governor's approval were overlooked, the respondent could not complain that his termination by the same Council lacked the Governor's sanction. The argument of earlier investment of judicial powers was rejected because it occurred in 1954, long before superannuation. The Court also deprecated personal remarks made by the Chief Justice of the High Court against a colleague, emphasising judicial restraint. The appeal was allowed, the writ petition dismissed, and the termination upheld without costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Permanency in Government Service - Assam Fundamental Rules, Rule 9(22) - A temporary employee does not become permanent merely by being placed in a different regular pay scale; permanency requires confirmation - The respondent was appointed temporarily as Judge of the District Council Court without Governor's approval and later placed in a regular scale, but this did not convert his temporary post into a permanent one - Held that temporary appointment continues unless confirmed (Paras 6-9). B) Service Law - Superannuation and Re-employment - Assam Fundamental Rules, Rule 56 - Compulsory retirement at age 55 bars retention without government sanction - The respondent attained age of superannuation on 16-2-1957; continued service by District Council without government sanction was invalid; no rule shown for continuation - Held that after superannuation, retention requires government sanction, absent here (Paras 8-10). C) Administrative Law - Appointment and Termination by Statutory Authority - United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953, Rule 9 - Appointment without Governor's approval cannot ground challenge to termination by same authority - Even overlooking invalid initial appointment, the employee cannot complain that termination by the Council lacked Governor's sanction - Held that termination by the very Council is not invalid on that ground (Paras 10-11). D) Constitutional Law - Sixth Schedule Autonomous Districts - Constitution of India, Article 244 and Sixth Schedule - Powers of Governor to sanction service beyond superannuation not delegated by earlier investment of judicial powers - The argument that Governor had invested respondent with powers for Scheduled Districts and Lower Assam in 1954 was rejected because it occurred before superannuation and did not constitute valid extension of service - Held that earlier investment of powers did not help (Para 12). E) Judicial Conduct - Judicial Propriety - No statutory provision - Personal remarks by Chief Justice against another judge disapproved - The Supreme Court deprecated personal remarks made by the Chief Justice of the High Court against a colleague, emphasizing judicial restraint and decorum - Held that such remarks were improper and unjust (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent was a permanent employee under Assam Fundamental Rule 9(22) after being placed in regular scale of pay; whether his services could be terminated by District Council without Governor's approval after he had attained superannuation age under Fundamental Rule 56
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; writ petition dismissed; respondent's termination upheld; no costs.
Law Points
- Temporary employee does not become permanent merely by being placed in a regular pay scale
- permanency requires confirmation
- compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rule 56 at age 55 bars continuation without government sanction
- appointment without Governor's approval cannot found a challenge to termination by same authority
