DHARMASHASTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

JABALPUR, MADHYA PRADESH

__________________________________________________________________________________
Session- 2023-24
Subject: Service Laws
Topic: Basant Lal Malhotra V. State of Punjab

Submitted To:
Smt. Ruchira Chaturvedi
Assistant Professor of Law, DNLU Jabalpur

Submitted By:
Piyush Mani (BAL/015/19)

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In preparation of my Service Laws project on topic “Case Commentary on Basant Lal

Malhotra V. UOI”, that required the help and guidance of some respected persons, who
deserve my deepest gratitude. As the completion of this project gave me much pleasure, I
would like to show my gratitude to Associate Professor Shalesh N. Hadli, Vice Chancellor
(I/C) of Dharmashastra National Law University.

I would also like to show my gratitude to Shri Shashank Pathak, , Assistant Professor of Law
for giving me good guidelines for project throughout numerous consultations. I would also
like to extend my gratitude to all those who have directly and indirectly guided me in writing
this assignment.

I am also thankful to the librarian for providing me the relevant books and support required
for this project. Many people have made valuable comments and suggestions on my project
which gave me inspiration to improve the quality of this project.

Piyush Mani

2
NAME OF THE CASE: Basant Lal Malhotra V. State of Punjab

Citation: AIR 1969 P&H 178

FACTS OF THE CASE

The above mentioned case is majorly about the decisive determination of the term
“Appointment” and “Recruitment”. Shri Basant Lal Malhotra was a retired Additional
District and session judge who had filed a writ of Mandamus, asking the court to direct the
Punjab government to refix the pension for the petitioner and thereby allow him the benefit
under rule 4.2 of Punjab Civil Services Rules.

The petitioner was recruited as a Civil Servant judicial cadre as a result of competitive
examination held by Lahore High Court in the year of 1935 and after going through the
prescribed judicial and revenue training he was appointed as a subordinate judge in October
1938.

The petitioner on acquiring superannuation at the age of 55 years, eventually retired from the
services in April 1962 as Additional District and Sessions Judge.

The provision as contained in rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rule marks the distinction
between the class of officers recruited to the services before 11th September 1937 and those
who were recruited after the set date with regards to the matter of condonation of the period
not exceeding 5 years for the purpose of pension.

On interpretation of this rule the petitioner claimed that his actual period of service was 28
years and 6 months rather than 23 years and 6 months as counted by the department and
hence the benefit be extended to him as well.

In due course the state of Punjab Centre letter on 25th July 1956 with stated that the
petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the said rule because he has been appointed

3
as a subordinate judge after the date of September 1937 and hence the benefit of rule 4.2 of
the pension rules referred above could not be extended to him.

CONTENTION OF PARTIES

Petitioner’s Contention:
As per the petitioner; the respondent was absolutely wrong in its interpretation and
henceforth confusing the expression “recruitment” with expression of “appointment” where
by as per the petitioner the very fact that a candidate on recruitment as a Civil Servant
(judicial branch) under the rules was required to produce a medical certificate and to undergo
6 months of training which he has done and hence had fully complied with the condition
precedent for Appointment, which makes its crystal clear that there is marking difference
between the two terms.

Respondent's Contention:
The Respondent asserted that petitioner joined services on October, 1938 which is after the
crucial date of 11th September, 1937 and hence no distinction should be drawn between the
expression of recruitment and appointment.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

After that thoughtful consideration to all the relevant provisions the lordships came up to the
conclusion that the term ‘recruitment’ and ‘appointment’ are not synonymous and they reflect
different meanings, the term ‘recruitment’ connotes and clearly signifies “the enlistment,
acceptance, selection and approval for appointment” and not the actual appointment or
posting in service while appointment means; an actual act of posting a person to a
particular office and hence the word recruited existing in rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil
Services Rules does not mean actually appointment and the petitioner should be deemed to
have been duly recruited as on 26th March 1936 and the benefits be extended to the
petitioner.
Hence the need is to differentiate between appointment and recruitment.