Holding

The power to abolish a post rests with the government, and when exercised in good faith, the decision is not subject to judicial interference.

Summary

Navneet Verma was appointed as an Accounts Executive on a temporary post in the Haryana Bureau of Public Enterprises (HBPE) in July 1993. In December 1994 his services were terminated on the ground that the post had been abolished. Verma contended that the abolition was a pretext to remove him due to personal grievances with the Financial Adviser, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the abolition and ordered his reinstatement. The State of Haryana appealed, arguing that the decision to abolish the two temporary Accounts Executive posts was based on an overall assessment of workload, staff requirements and fiscal prudence, and was taken in good faith. The Supreme Court held that the power to create or abolish posts rests with the government, and as long as the decision is made in good faith and not arbitrarily or malafide, judicial interference is unwarranted. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, confirming the termination as lawful.

Issues considered

The abolition of the temporary post of Accounts Executive was done in good faith or as a camouflage to remove the employee.
Whether the court can interfere with the government's decision to abolish a post under Article 311(2).
The validity of termination of service on the basis of abolition of a temporary post.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 311(2)

Subjects

service lawabolition of posttemporary postgood faithadministrative discretionArticle 311government powertermination of employmentHaryana Bureau of Public Enterprises

Judgment

),

A STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
v.
NAVNEET VERMA
-
OCTOBER 31, 2007
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
A

Service law: r-

c Abolition of post-Termination, pursuant to abolition of
temporary post-Sustainability of-Held: Posts are created, continued
and abolished by the Government in the interest ofadministration and
general public-On facts, decision to abolish temporary post taken on
basis ofthe overall assessment ofwork load and staffrequirement and
was finally approved and sanctioned by Government-Entire action
D
was taken in good faith-Hence, abolition of post justified and
consequent termination of employee, sustainable. 1-
Abolition ofpost-Power of Government-Scope of-Stated
....,
Judicial review: Abolition ofpost-Interference by Court-Scope
E
of-Stated
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was
whether abolition of the post of Accounts Executives in the Haryana
Bureau of Public Enterprises (HBPE), and thereafter consequential
F order of termination terminating the respondent from the said post . '.r·
....
was done in good faith or was it a camouflage to cover up and conceal
the real intention of weeding out the respondent from service.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
G HELD: 1. The power of Government in abolishing a post and
role of the Court for interference, the power to create or abolish a ~.....
post rests with the government, whether a particular post is
necessary is a matter depending upon the exigencies of the situation
and administrative necessity; creation and abolition of posts is a
H 762
STATE v. NA VNEETVERMA 763

matter of Government policy and every sovereign Government has A
this power in the interest and necessity of internal administration;
creation, continuance and abolition of posts are all decided by the
Government in the interest of administration and general public; the
court would be the least competent in the face of scanty material to
decide whether the Government acted honestly in creating a post B
or refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from malafide, legal
or factual;-as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good
faith in the absence of material, interference by the court is not
warranted. [Parall] [770-F,G; 771-A,B,C]
2.1. The first complaint by the respondent shows that there was C
some misunderstanding between the Accounts Executive and
Financial Adviser. However, on scrutiny it showed that only Personal
Assistant to Financial Adviser was responsible for the alleged
misbehaviour. Further, Respondent made a complaint to Hon 'ble the
Chief Minister of Haryana about his difficulty in working as an D
Accounts Executive with HBPE. The complaint made it clear that
the Accounts Executive had some grievance against the Member
Secretary and the Financial Advisor regarding the distribution of
work. The materials placed showed that on the basis of the complaint,
a preliminary enquiry was conducted and ultimately no action was E
taken based on the same. Though certain misunderstanding arose
between the Accounts Executive and the Financial Adviser, it is
impossible to believe that for this reason the Government abolished
the post of Accounts Executive and consequently terminated the
-"'1
>· service of the respondent. ~-
[Paras 13 and 15] [771-F, G; 774-B, C, D]
2.2. Appellant submitted that taking note oflesser activities of
HBPE and after assessing the work load as well as sanctioned staff
and after full deliberations by responsible officers, it was
recommended to the Government for abolition of two posts of G
Accounts Executives. On accepting the recommendations of the
Committee constituted by HBPE, the Government passed an order
according sanction to abolish two temporary posts of Accounts
Executives sanctioned for HBPE. Based on the said decision of the
Government and in view of Condition No.2 of the appointment letter H
)

764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I I S.C.R.

A of the respondent that the appointment of the respondent was fully·
against temporary post and the same was liable to be 'abolished at
any time and without notice whenever there was no vacancy against
which he could be retained, his services were terminated. In such
circumstances, the claim of the respondent that there was no bona
B fide· in terminating his service and the High Court erred in accepting
the said claim, cannot be accepted. [Para 14) [772-B, C, D, E, F)

2.3. A perusal of the office order dated 05.08.1994 clearly
demarcates various types of work to be handled by the Financial
Advisor and the Accounts Executive. Appellants brought to notice
C various minutes of the meetings and the ultimate decision by HBPE
for pruning their staff considering less work load and present position
of the staff sanctioned. After getting all the required details
regarding the work load and sanctioned staff of HBPE and on the
basis of the report of the Committee, a decision was taken by the
D Chair*1an that there was no requirement for two posts of Accounts
Executives and can be abolished without affecting the work of the
Bureau. Based on the said decision, the Government while accepting
the same accorded sanction to abolish two temporary posts of
Accounts Executives sanctioned earlier. In those circumstances, it
E cannot be said that the posts of Account Executives were abolished
in order to terminate him from the said service. High Court erred in
accepting the claim of the respondent.
. [Para 15) [772-G; 773-A; 774-B, C, DJ
2.4. It is clear from the materials placed in the rejoin.der
F affidavit that the Government of Haryana has been making earnest
efforts to control its non-plan expenditure. It also shows that due to
various efforts including the action taken by the HBPE non-:plan
expenditure has been substantially reduced. In the light of1the,
particulars furnished, the decision to abolish the posts of Accounts
G Executives was taken on the basis of the overall assessment of the
work load and staff requirement of the Bureau and the same was
finally approved and sanctioned by the Government and consequent
to the said decision, the service of the respondent was terminated.
The entire action was taken in good faith and there is no substantial
H material to arrive at a conclusio.n that the abolition of the post was
STATE v. NAVNEETVERMA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 765

due to revenge against the respondent. The decision taken by the A
Bureau and the Government are concurred with and the conclusion
arrived at by the High Court that the abolition of posts of Accounts
Executives was not done in good faith but only intended to get rid of
the respondent and as such quashing the order abolishing the posts
of Accounts Executive and the consequential termination of the B
services of the respondent, cannot be accepted and is set aside.
[Paras 16 and 17) [775-B, C, D, E, F)

M Ramanatha Pillai v. The State of Kera/a and Anr., (1973) 2
SCC 650; Shri Kedar Nath Bahlv. The State ofPunjab and Ors., (1974)
3 SCC 21; State ofHaryana v. Shri Des Raj Sangar and Anr., (1976) c
2 SCC 844; Dr. NC. Singhalv. UnionoflndiaandOrs., [1980] 3 SCC
29 and Avas Vikas Sansthan and Anr. v. Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers
Assn. and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 132, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5064 of D
2007.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2004 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Letter Patent Appeal No.
163 of 1999 in Civil Writ Petition No. 442of1995.
E
Manjit Singh, AAG., P.N. Misra, Hari Kesh Singh and T.V. George
for the Appellants.
M.K. Dua and Satbir Singh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
P. SATHASIVAM, J. (I) Leave granted.

(2) Whether the abolition of the post has been done in good faith
or whether it is a camouflage to cover up and conceal the real intention
of weeding out the respondent from service is the only question to be G
decided in this appeal.
BRIEF FACTS:
(3) The respondent-herein was appointed as Accounts Executive in
the Haryana Bureau of Pubic Enterprises (in short 'the HBPE') on H
\
)

766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
f-
A 16.07.1993. While continuing so, his services were terminated on
31.12.1994 on the ground that the post of Accounts Executive has been
abolished. According to the respondent-herein, the third appellant applied
for the post of Financial Adviser. Even though she did not fulfill the
prescribed requirement of three years experience after doing chartered
B accountancy, she had been appointed as Financial Adviser and the
respondent-herein who was appointed as Accounts Executive was
,A,
required to report to her due to which she wanted him to work as her
personal staff. He did not carry out petty directions. When he brought
these facts to the notice of the Member Secretary, HBPE, he wanted him
c to resign the job. The Member Secretary and the Financial Adviser
seemed to have different attitude and started planning to eliminate him.
Having no other option, on 26.07.1994, he made a representation to the
then Chief Minister ofHaryana. In the meanwhile, the Financial Adviser
third appellant herein lodged a false and baseless complaint against him
D to the Membei: Secretary. Based on the complaint of the Financial Adviser,
a preliminary inquiry was conducted. However, no action was taken against
him -on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer. But instead of taking 'i' ~

any action, in accordance with law, his services have beeJ!_dispensed with
consequent upon the abolition of the posts of Accounts Executives.
E (4) According to the respondent, there is no justification for abolition ._
~

of the posts of Accounts Executive and it was done with a malafide
intention to dispense with his services without any basis. Though two posts
of Accounts Executives were advertised, only one post was filled up by
appointing him. Thus, according to him, the post was not abolished in good
F faith, but this was a device to weed him out from service. Therefore, the
order of termination on the ground of abolition of post is liable to be set
'r
' .
aside.
(5) It is the case of Haryana Government and HBPE that the abolition
of posts of Accounts Executives was not done with malafide intention or
G
extraneous reasons. According to them, in January, 1994, it was felt that
the work of Bureau was not bemg performed as per official requirements
and it required restructuring of the staff vis-a-vis the work load of the
Bureau and it was observed that the contribution of two posts of Accounts
Executives, especially, when there are two posts of Accountants were not
H
j
I
STATEv. NAVNEETVERMA[P.SATHASIVAM,J.] 767

result oriented and the work could smoothly be carried out on even without A
the two posts of Accounts Executives. It was further stated that the
Accountants can send their case directly to the Financial Advisor, who
was the head of the financial wing in giving advice regarding financial offers.
Consequently, two posts of Accounts Executives were abolished and
services of the respondent were tenninated as he was no longer required. B
(6) Though a complaint was received from the Financial Adviser
regarding mis-behaviour by the respondent-herein, preliminary inquiry was
conducted into the allegations made, but no action was taken and the
preliminary inquiry has no relevance with regard to the decision taken on
the abolition of the posts. The said decision was taken to abolish the posts C
of Accounts Executives after obtainmg permission of the government.
(7) The Learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court, after finding that the abolition of posts of Accounts Executives have
not been done in good faith but only intended to get rid of the respondent- D
writ petitioner herein, quashed the order dated 30.12.1994 abolishing the
posts of Accounts Executive and consequential tennination of services of
the writ petitioner. In the same order, the learned Judge issued direction
for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The said order was
challenged by the Government ofHaryana, HBPE as well as Smt. Kiran E
Lekha Walia, Financial Adviser, HBPE in Letters Patent Appeal No. 163
of 1999. The Division Bench, by impugned order, accepted the conclusion
arrived at by the learned Single Judge and finding no merit in the appeal
dismissed the same with no order as to costs. Questioning the order of
the High Court, the appellants have filed the above appeal by way of F
special leave.

(8) We have heard Mr. P.N. Misra, learned senior counseL appearing
for the appellants and Mr. M.K. Dua, learned counsel, appearing for the
respondent.

(9) As observed earlier, we have to find out whether the abolition G
of posts of Accounts Executive has been done in good faith or whether
it is a camouflage to cover up and send out the respondent-herein from
service.
(10) Before proceeding to ascertain the answer for the above H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A question, it is useful to refer to the appointment order of the Government
of Haryana dated 13.07.1993 wherein the respondent-herein was
appointed as Accounts Executive in HBPE. Among the other tenns, clause
2 of the said order is relevant which reads as under:-
"This offer of appointment is purely against temporary post which
B is liable to be abolished at any time and carries no promise of
subsequent permanent employment. No offer of permanent
vacancy can be made to him at present. Consequently his services
can be terminated without notice whenever there is no vacancy
against which he can be retained."
c
It is clear that the respondent-herein was appointed purely against
temporary post and it is liable to be abolished at any time. The said clause
makes it clear that the post has no assurance or promise for a permanent
employment. It also makes it clear that his services can be terminated
D without notice whenever there is no vacancy against which he can be
retained. Now, with this background, let us consider the law laid down
by this Court with regard to power of the Government in abolishing
temporary/permanent post.
(i) M Ramanatha Pillai v. The State of Kerala and Anr.,
E (1973] 2 SCC 650, a Constitution Bench of this Court held
as under:
"23. A post may be abolished in good faith. The order abolishing
the post may lose its effective character if it is established to have
been made arbitrarily, malafide or as a mask of some penal action
F
within the meaning of Article 311 (2)."
(Ii) Shri Kedar Nath Bahl v. The State of Punjab and Ors.,
(1974] 3 SCC 21, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held in
para 11 as under:
G " ....... .If, in the interest of the Administration, the temporary post
is abolished, the question as to what were the personal relations
between the appellant and his superiors was irrelevant. Moreover,
all that the appellant has been able to say is that his immediate
superiors in the Department were with the action of his immediate
H
j
I
STATEv.NAVNEETVERMA[P.SATHASIVAM,J.] 769

A
superiors but the action of the Government. The decision to
discontinue the post was the decision of the Government and it is
not alleged in the Writ Petition that in taking this decision the
Government acted malafide. We, therefore, agree with the High
Court that there is no substance in the allegation that the post was
B
,A. discontinued or abolished in order to punish the appellant.
(iii) State of Hmyana v. Shri Des Raj Sangar and Anr., [1976]
2 SCC 844, this Court, in para 8, has held: .
" ....... The fact that the post to be abolished is held by a person
who is confim1ed in that post and the post which is not abolished c
is held by a person who is not permanent would not affect the
legality of the decision to abolish the former post as long as the
decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith."
(iv) Dr. N.C. Singhal V. Union ofIndia and Ors., [1980] 3 sec D
) )-
29. Similar issue was considered in detail. Accepting the stand
of (he Government of India in abolishing the post, this Court
held thus:
18..........The need for the post of the requirements of the hospital,
or the need for an ad hoc or additional appointment is a matter E
which the Government is competent to decide and in the absence
of requisite material the Court cannot interpose its own decision
on the necessity of creation or abolition of posts. Whether a
particular post is necessary is a matter depending upon the
.,--...
exigencies of the situation and administrative necessity. The F
Government is a better Judge of the interests of the general public
for whose service the hospitals are set up. And whether a hospital
catering to the needs of general public providing medical relief in
different specialities has need for a particular post in a particular
speciality would be better judged by the Government running the G
,I ~ hospital. If Government is a better judge it must have the power
to create or abolish the posts depending upon the needs of the
hospital and the requirements of general p~blic. Creation and
abolition of posts is a matter of Government policy and every
sovereign Government has this power in the interest and necessity H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A of internal administration. The creation or abolition o(post is
dictated by policy decision, exigencies of circumstances and
administrative necessity. The creation, the continuance and the
abolition of post are all decided by the Government in the interest
of administration and general public (see M Ramanatha Pillai v.
B State ofKera/a.) (1974] 1S.C.R.515 at 520. The Court would
be the least competent in the face of scanty material to decide
whether the Government acted honestly in creating a post or
refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from mala fide, legal
or factual.
c (v) In the recent decision - Avas Vikas Sansthan and Anr. v. Avas
VikasSansthan Engineers Assn. and Ors., (2006] 4 SCC
132, analyzing all earlier decisions, this Court has concluded:
"59. It is well settled that the power to abolish a post which may
D result in the holder thereof ceasing to be a Government Servant
has got to be recognized. The measure of economy and the need
for streamlining the administration to make it more efficient may
induce any State Government to make alterations in the staffmg
pattern of the civil services necessitating either the increase or the
E decrease in the number of posts or abolish the post. In such an
event, a Department which was abolished or abandonedwholly
or partially for want of funds, the Court cannot, by a writ of
mandamus, direct the employer to continue employing such
employees as have been dislodged."
F (11) We summarize the power of government in abolishing a post
and role of the court for interference:
(a) the power to create or abolish a post rests with the
government;
G ·(b) whether a particular post is necessary is a matter depending
upon the exigencies of the situation and administrative
necessity;
(c) creation and abolition of posts is a matter of government policy
and every sovereign government has this power in the interest
H
j
I STATE v. NAVNEETVERMA (P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 771
- "l
and necessity of internal administration; A
(d) creation, continuance and abolition of posts are all decided by
the government in the interest of administration and general
public;
(e) the court would be the least competent in the face of scanty B
material to decide whether the government acted honestly in
creating a post or refusing to create a post or its decision
suffers from malafide, legal or factual;
(f) as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good
faith in the absence of material, interference by the court is not c
warranted.
(12) With the above principles, let us consider whether the abolition
of the posts of Accounts Executives are justified and consequential order
of termination terminating the respondent-herein from the said post is
D
sustainable.
) )-

(13) The main grievance of the respondent herein was that since he
was also equally qualified as that of Financial Adviser, appellant No.3
herein, she was not in favour of continuing him in HBPE as Accounts
Executive. The other grievance was that appellant No.3 used to humiliate E
by insulting him. According to him, instead of taking any action against
him under the service Rules, his services have been dispensed with by
abolishing the post of Accounts Executive. In other words, it is his specific
case that the abolition of post of Accounts Executive was done with a
~
mala fide intention to dispense with his service without any basis. The F
" materials placed before the High Court as well as this Court show that
HBPE as well as the Financial Adviser denied those allegations. In the
light of the complaint, allegations and counter allegations, we verified the
relevant records which are available in the paper book. The first complaint
(Annexure Rl) dated 15.09.1993 shows that there was some G
misunderstanding between the Accounts Executive and Financial Adviser,
> t however, scrutiny of the said complaint clearly shows that only Personal
Assistant to Financial Adviser was responsible for the alleged
misbehaviour. In the complaint, Accounts Executive has specifically stated,
The P.A. attached to the F.A. grossly misbehaves and uses foul and H
I

~
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A abusive language on the instigation of the F.A." We also perused the letter
of the Member Secretary, HBPE dated 21.09 .1993 addressed to the
Accounts Executive and subsequent correspondence which are available
in the appeal paper book. As observed earlier, thougp certain
misunderstanding arose between the Accounts Executive and the Financial
B Adviser, it is impossible to believe that for this reason the Government
abolished the post of Accounts Executive and consequently terminated
the service of the respondent herein.
(14) Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, by placing
relevant materials, submitted that taking note oflesser activities of HBPE
C and after assessing the work load as well as sanctioned staff and after full
deliberations by responsible officers, it was recommended to the
Government for abolition of two posts of Accounts Executives. On
accepting the recommendations of the Committee constituted by HBPE,
the Government passed an order according sanction to abolish two
D temporary posts of Accounts Executives sanctioned for HBPE from
31.12.1994 (A/N) vide order dated 30.i2.1994 (Am1exure R-13). The -I "
said Government Order was issued in the name of Governor of Haryana
and with the concurrence of Finance Department. Based on the said
decision of the Government and in view of Condition No.2 of the
E appointment letter of the respondent bearing No. 2/8/88-Estt- l dated
13.07.1993, his services has been terminated from 31.12.1994 (AN). In
paragraph supra, we already referred to Condition No.2 of the
appointment order which makes it clear that the appointment 'of the
respondent was fully against temporary post and the same is liabfo to be
F abolished at any time and without notice. In such circumstances, we are r"
unable to accept the claim of the respondent that there was no bona fide
in terminating his service and the High Court has committed an error in
accepting the said claim. ·
G (15) It is also relevant to poi~t out that by office or~er dated
05.08.1994 HBPE has earmarked vanous types of works/subjects to be
handled by Financial Adviser, 3rd appellant herein, and Accounts 1 _.
Executive, respondent herein. A perusal of the said office order, filed as
Amlexure R-7 in the appeal paper book, clearly demarcates various types
of work to be handled by the Financial Advisor and the Accounts
H
r j
I
STATEv.NAVNEETVERMA[P.SATHASIVAM,J.] 773
~-)

Executive. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has also A
brought to our notice various minutes of the meetings and the ultimate,
decision by HBPE for pruning their staff considering less work load and .
present position of the staff sanctioned. Proceedings dated 12.01.1994
(Annexure R-3) shows that in order to assess the work load and present
position of the staff sanctioned for the HBPE a meeting of the officers of B
,A the Bureau was held by the Chairman, HBPE on 11.09.1994 in which·
the Member Secretary, Personnel Adviser, Financial Adviser and Assistant
Research Officer ofHBPE were participated. In the said meeting, the
Chairman felt that the work of the Bureau was not being performed as
per its mandate and suggested some restructuring of staff vis-' -vis the c
workload of the Bureau. He further observed that when there are three
professional posts to handle the financial affairs, Management Affairs and
Personnel Affairs of all the State Public Enterprises then there was no
necessity of having two posts of Accounts Executives having the similar
qualifications and experience as the Financial Adviser. It was also
D
J r suggested that in the next officers level meeting, the complete restructuring
of staff vis-' -vis officers oriented nature of work of the Bureau and
sanctioned staff may be put up with details. Thereafter on 11.04.1994
(Annexure R-4), a meeting was held. The minutes of the meeting shows
that the details of the sanctioned staff, work load and re-structuring was
E
discussed in detail. It further shows that the instructions on economy in
expenditure issued by the State Government from time to time were also
brought to the notice of the Chairman for which he desired that these
should also be made applicable for the staff of the Bureau. The Chairman
... had also made clear that the Bureau should not have excess staff as
compared to the work load. In the said meeting while assessing the work F
-

"'
load and staff in the Financial Wing, it was observed that the contribution
of two posts of Accounts Executives especially when there are two posts
of Accountants was not result oriented and the work can smoothly be
carried on even without the two posts of Accounts Executives. The
Chairman desired that MS/HBPE should assess the work load and the G
"' t staff strength of Finance and Accounts Wing and discuss in detail in the
next officers level meeting. It is also relevantto point out that before taking
final decision; the respondent herein by letter dated 26.07.1994 made a
complaint to Honble the Chief Minister ofHaryana about his difficulty in
H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A working as an Accounts Executive with HBPE which is annexed as
Annexure R-5. The complaint makes it clear that the Accounts Exeeutive
had some grievance against the Member Secretary and the Financial
Advisor regarding the distribution of work. Further materials placed show
that on the basis of the complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted
B and ultimately no action was taken based on the same. Finally, as stated
earlier, after getting all the required details regarding the work load and
sanctioned staff ofHBPE and on the basis of the report of the Committee,
a decision was taken by the Chairman that there was no requirement for
two posts of Accounts Executives and can be abolished without affecting
c the work of the Bureau. Based on the said decision, the Government while
accepting the same accorded sanction to abolish two temporary p()sts of
Accounts Executives sanctioned earlier. In those circumstances, it is
impossible to accept the stand of the respondent herein that the posts of
Account Executives were abolished in order to terminate him from the
D said service. We are of the view that the High Court has committed an
error in accepting the claim of the respondent herein.
( 16) Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the HBPE before this Court
clearly shows the various steps taken by the Committee and the ultimate
decision of the Chairman for reduction of the staff strength. It is specifically
E stated in the reply that in accordance with the instructions of the
Government, the requirement of posts for HBPE has been reviewed from
time to time and various posts have been abolished even after the decision
to abolish two posts of Accounts Executives. The information .~b~ut the
abolition of the various posts given in the rejoinder affidaviL1~ted
F 20.07.2005 is relevant which reads as under: -· -·~
J,~

..
'•,

• t~ J
STATEv. NAVNEETVERMA[P.SATHASIVAM,J.] 775

S.No. Name of the Post No. of posts Date ofabolition A
1. Accounts Executive 2 31.12.1994
2. Senior Research Officer 1 29.6.1999
3. Assistant Research Officer 1 28.8.2000
4. Asstt. District Attorney 1 1.3.2000 B
5. Computer Operator 1 1.6.2001
6. JSS/Steno Typist 4 3 l.12.94/22.10.2b01
7. Clerk I 22.10.2001
8. Peon 4 31.12.94/22.10.2001
c
. 9. Personnel Advisor 1 14.5.2004
10. Accountant 1 14.5.2004
It is clear from the materials placed in the rejoinder affidavit that the
Government ofHaryana has been making earnest efforts to control, its D
non-planned expenditure. The rejoinder affidavit also shows that due to
various efforts including the action taken by the HBPE non-planned
expenditure has been substantially reduced. In the light of the particulµrs
furnished, we are of the opinion that the decision to abolish the posts, of
Accounts Executives was taken on the basis of the overall assessment,of E
the work load and staff requirement of the Bureau and the same was finaµy
approved and sanctioned by the Government and consequent to the said
decision, the service of the respondent herein was terminated. We hold
that the entire action was taken in good faith and there is no substantial
material to arrive at a conclusion that the abolition of the post was due to F
revenge against the respondent herein.
( 17) In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to accept
the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and we are in agreement with
the decision taken by the Bureau and the Government. Consequently, the G
orders passed by the High Court in LP.A. No. 163 of 1999 dated
16.03.2004 and in C.W.P. No. 442of1995 dated 29.01.1999 are set
aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
N.J. Appeal allowed. H