K. KARUPPANNAN versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

K. KARUPPANNAN versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

The appellant's appointment as Supervisor by Thanjavur Market Committee under the rules then in force, followed by regularisation and completion of probation, made him the employee of that Committee. Subsequent rules and government orders preserved his employment status, and his repatriation to the parent committee was illegal as the centralised service eliminated the distinction between parent and borrowing committees.

Parties
Appellant: K. Karuppannan; Respondents: Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Centralised Service, Transfer, Repatriation, Regularisation, Probation, Promotion
Service Law Centralised Service Transfer Repatriation Regularisation Probation Promotion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. Karuppannan

Appellant

Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, upon transfer and appointment as Supervisor in Thanjavur Market Committee, became an employee of that Committee and whether his repatriation to the parent Market Committee was legal after regularisation and completion of probation

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's appointment as Supervisor by Thanjavur Market Committee under the rules then in force, followed by regularisation and completion of probation, made him the employee of that Committee. Subsequent rules and government orders preserved his employment status, and his repatriation to the parent committee was illegal as the centralised service eliminated the distinction between parent and borrowing committees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and order under appeal set aside
  • The appellant is treated as employee of Thanjavur Market Committee