http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RATILAL B. SONI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/02/1990

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1132            1990 SCR  (1) 414  1990 SCC  Supl.  243     JT 1990 (1)   229  1990 SCALE  (1)228

ACT:     Gujarat Panchayats Act,  1961: Section 206A(2)--Panchay- at Service--Employees--Deputation to State Service--Does not confer a right to be absorbed on the deputation-post.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellants belonging to the Revenue  Department  of Gujarat  State were allocated to the Panchayat Service  when the  Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 came into force and  their allocation  became final under section 206A(2) of  the  Act. Thereafter  they went on deputation as Circle Inspectors  in the  State  service but were later reverted  back  to  their parent cadre in the Panchayat Service.     The  appellants  challenged their reversion  before  the High Court which dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD: 1. It is clear from section 206A(2) of the Gujarat Panchayats  Act,  1961 that a Panchayat servant who  is  not reallocated  within a period of four years from  the  coming into force of the Act would be deemed to be finally allocat- ed  to the Panchayat Service. The High Court has  held  that the appellants have not been able to show that they made any such  options before the specified date. Even if the  appel- lant  gave  some  sort of option the same  having  not  been accepted before the expiry of specified date, the appellants stood finally allocated to the Panchayat Service. [416B-C]     2.  The  appellants being on deputation  they  could  be reverted  to their parent cadre at any time and they do  not get  any right to be absorbed on the deputation-post.  There is no infirmity In the judgment of the High Court. [416D]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1012  of 1987. From  the  Judgment and Order dated 24.9.86 of  the  Gujarat High 415 Court in B.I-.P.A. No. 259 of 1986. B.  Datta, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Shalini Soni for  the  Appel-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

lants. T.U. Mehta and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KULDIP  SINGH,  J. The appellants are in  the  cadre  of Talatiscum-Mantries (Patwaries) in the Panchayat Service  of the State of Gujarat. In the year 1982/83 they were sent  on deputation  to the higher cadre of Circle Inspectors in  the State service. The question for consideration is whether  in the  facts  of this case the appellants have a right  to  be absorbed in the cadre of Circle Inspectors.     The  appellants were originally appointed as Talatis  in the  Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat.  Under  the Gujarat  Panchayat Act (hereinafter called ’the Act’)  which came  into force with effect from April 1,  1963,  Panchayat Service  was constituted and under the Act all the posts  of Talatis  along with the incumbents stood transferred to  the Panchayat Service. On that date there was a cadre of  Circle Inspectors in the State Service which was bifurcated and 50% of the posts continued in the State Service and the  remain- ing  50%  were  transferred to the  Panchayat  Service.  The appellants  were sent on deputation as Circle Inspectors  in the State Cadre. In January 1986 qualified officials  became available for promotion to the post of Circle Inspectors  in the State cadre and as such the appellants were reverted  to their parent cadre of Talatis in the Panchayat service.  The appellants challenged the reversion by way of writ  petition in the Gujarat High Court primarily on the ground that their options  for  absorption in the State Service  were  pending with  the  State  Government which the State  was  bound  to decide  in their favour. The High Court dismissed  the  writ petition  holding  that there was nothing on the  record  to show  that the appellants gave any option to be absorbed  in the State cadre. The High Court also found that they,  being on  deputation,  have no legal right to be absorbed  in  the State  Service. This appeal by special leave is against  the judgment of the High Court.     We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The State by a circular dated February 8, 1965 asked the Talatis among others  to  give their options as to whether  they  want  to remain in the Panchayat Service or to be re-allocated to the State Service. Section 206A(2) of the Act is as under: 416          "Any  officer  or servant who  is  not  reallocated under sub-section (1) and continues in the Panchayat Service immediately  before  the expiry of the aforesaid  period  of four  years, shall on such expiry, be deemed to  be  finally allocated to the Panchayat Service."     It  is  clear  from the above quoted  provision  that  a Panchayat servant who is not reallocated within a period  of four years from. April 1, 1963 would be deemed to be finally allocated to the Panchayat Service. The High Court has  held that  the  appellants have not been able to show  that  they made  any such options before March 31, 1967. Even if it  is assumed  that  the appellants gave some sort of  option  the same  having  not been accepted before March 31,  1967,  the appellants stood finally allocated to the Panchayat Service.     The appellants being on deputation they could be revert- ed to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right  to  be  absorbed on the deputation-post.  We  see  no infirmity  in the judgment of the High Court and as such  we dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. T.N.A.                               Appeal dismissed. ?417

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3