Case: Gajraj Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya- Pradesh &amp; Anr

said Retrenchment Terms which provided two things, (1) laying down principles for selection of those who were to be absorbed, and (2) to grant some benefit by way of a reasonable subsistence to those who would not be absorbed, which would enable them to tide over the period necessary for building up new associations. The retrenchment terms were framed on the basis of the recommendations made by the Mohan Rau Committee, appointed for going into the question of the surplus personnel, who until then were in the service of the erstwhile acceding States, such as Gwalior. In order to be fair and not to be arbitrary in the matter of selection of those who were to be absorbed in the service of the new State, the Retrenchment Terms laid down seven categories of persons who were not to be absorbed.10. It is clear from the said Retrenchment Terms themselves that they dealt with a two-fold problem, (1) of the surplus staff of the acceding States, and (2) of payment of a reasonable subsistence to such of the surplus personnel who could not be absorbed. Though the said notification called its provisions "Retrenchment Terms", there was no question of any retrenchment in the sense in which that expression is ordinarily understood. The question of retrenchment could arise only in the case of persons who had already been absorbed and continued in the service of the new State. As aforesaid, the process of absorption was pending and under consideration. Until it was completed, the appellants name figured in the list of the provisionally absorbed persons". It was, therefore, not as if the surplus employees of the acceding States had already been absorbed or retained in the service of the new State and then were retrenched or removed from service.11. The seven categories of persons classified in the said Retrenchment Terms also indicate that those persons were not to be absorbed and not that they were to be removed or retrenched from the service of the new State. There is nothing on record to show that the new State was bound to absorb in its service all the employees of the acceding States even if they were surplus. As aforesaid, even if the covenant under which the acceding States joined the new State so provided, the individual employees of such States did not thereunder acquire any right to be absorbed or continued in service of the new State. The non-absorption of persons falling in the seven categories could not, therefore, amount in law to removal or dismissal from service. They were simply not absorbed in the service of the new State and had, therefore, not yet become its employees. No question thus of removal or dismissal could possibly arise.12. It is true that of the seven categories of persons, category 2 related to persons whose previous service record was consistently bad. The decision not to absorb such persons, however, could not amount to any punishment for the reason that they were not yet absorbed or continued in service of the new State and had, therefore, not become its employees. It is true that these persons along with persons falling in the other categories continued to work in the new State after its formation. But that was only by way of a provisional arrangement, until the process of absorption was finalised. No question of paying subsistence or compensation also could have arisen if their non-absorption amounted to either removal or dismissal by way of punishment.13. Category l consisted of those who had reached the age of 55 years, it they were in superior service, or 60 years, if they were in inferior service. Their non-absorption, surely, could not constitute either removal or dismissal as and by way of punishment. The same would be the case of those in categories 3, 5 and 6, namely, temporary and officiating government servants, persons who had put in service for 30 years and more, and permanent government servants who had less than three years service to their credit. These persons were placed in these categories presumably for the reason that their non-absorption would not work as a hardship or be unfair as against persons who were permanent government servants and who had a long period to be in service. The classification of persons in the seven categories was thus clearly made to select persons from out of those who were in excess of the requirements of the new State. Since they were not to be absorbed, they could not be said to have been the employees of the new State and Art. 311, therefore, could not apply to their cases. The claim of the appellant that the impugned order amounted to punishment or that for that reason Art. 311 was attracted was clearly misconceived.14. The respondent-State had relied upon categories 2, 4 and 7, as grounds for the impugned order. So far as category 4 was concerned, there can be no doubt that the appellant did not have the minimum educational qualification required for the post of a Sub-Inspector. Since that was so, he would also fall in category No. 7, that is as a person who could not, for reasons considered adequate by the Government, be absorbed in the service of the new State. Even if, therefore, category (2) could not for some reason or the other be taken into consideration, categories 4 and 7 were relevant and valid. The mere fact that the Government could not avail of category (2) did not mean that it could not rely on the other two grounds. The reason is that this was not a case of subjective satisfaction, where on failure of one of the grounds it would be impossible to predicate whether the relevant authority could have reached its satisfaction only on the basis of the rest of the grounds. The tests here were objective ones and if one of the several such tests failed, but the others were sufficient, the order would still have to be sustained.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. It is clear from the said Retrenchment Terms themselves that they dealt with aproblem, (1) of the surplus staff of the acceding States, and (2) of payment of a reasonable subsistence to such of the surplus personnel who could not be absorbed. Though the said notification called its provisions "Retrenchment Terms", there was no question of any retrenchment in the sense in which that expression is ordinarily understood. The question of retrenchment could arise only in the case of persons who had already been absorbed and continued in the service of the new State. As aforesaid, the process of absorption was pending and under consideration. Until it was completed, the appellants name figured in the list of the provisionally absorbed persons". It was, therefore, not as if the surplus employees of the acceding States had already been absorbed or retained in the service of the new State and then were retrenched or removed from service.11. The seven categories of persons classified in the said Retrenchment Terms also indicate that those persons were not to be absorbed and not that they were to be removed or retrenched from the service of the new State. There is nothing on record to show that the new State was bound to absorb in its service all the employees of the acceding States even if they were surplus. As aforesaid, even if the covenant under which the acceding States joined the new State so provided, the individual employees of such States did not thereunder acquire any right to be absorbed or continued in service of the new State. Theof persons falling in the seven categories could not, therefore, amount in law to removal or dismissal from service. They were simply not absorbed in the service of the new State and had, therefore, not yet become its employees. No question thus of removal or dismissal could possibly arise.te had relied upon categories 2, 4 and 7, as grounds for the impugned order. So far as category 4 was concerned, there can be no doubt that the appellant did not have the minimum educational qualification required for the post of aSince that was so, he would also fall in category No. 7, that is as a person who could not, for reasons considered adequate by the Government, be absorbed in the service of the new State. Even if, therefore, category (2) could not for some reason or the other be taken into consideration, categories 4 and 7 were relevant and valid. The mere fact that the Government could not avail of category (2) did not mean that it could not rely on the other two grounds. The reason is that this was not a case of subjective satisfaction, where on failure of one of the grounds it would be impossible to predicate whether the relevant authority could have reached its satisfaction only on the basis of the rest of the grounds. The tests here were objective ones and if one of the several such tests failed, but the others were sufficient, the order would still have to be sustained.