V K NAMBUDIRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit against the Union of India and the State of Travancore-Cochin instituted by an Ex-Military Officer for damages and compensation for the wrongful termination of his employment to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and other reliefs. The main defence in the case is that the plaintiff, as a member of the Armed Forces, held office during the pleasure of the President by virtue of Art.310 of the Constitution and as such is not entitled to maintain a suit based on a wrongful termination of his employment. If this contention is accepted, the suit has to fail in limine; and I am of the view that the defence contention has to be accepted.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is as follows:- The plaintiff was a permanent employee of the rank of a Major in the State Forces of the erstwhile Travancore State when that State was integrated with the adjoining State of Cochin to form the State of Travancore-Cochin mentioned in Part B of the First Schedule to the Constitution. With the integration of the Travancore-Cochin State he became a Major in the Travancore-Cochin State Forces; and on coming into force of the Constitution on 26th January 1950 he became an officer of the Indian Army by virtue of Art.259 (2) of the Constitution. Thereafter he was entitled to all the privileges of a Major in the Indian Army; but, the 1st defendant, under colour of a reorganisation scheme, screened the officers of the Travancore-Cochin State Forces by the Indian Army Services Selection Board during which process the plaintiff was graded as unacceptable to the Indian Army. On the strength of such a grading, the Army Headquarters issued an order directing the release of the plaintiff from the Army. The plaintiff thereupon moved O.P. No. 67 of 1950 before the Travancore-Cochin High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Commandant of the Travancore-Cochin State Forces not to release the plaintiff from his rank in the Army. During the pendency of this petition the release order was cancelled by the authorities and the plaintiff was reinstated. On 5-3-1951, however, the 1st defendant issued a communication to the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army, which stated:

(3.) The 1st defendant, the Union of India, filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff had no cause of action in this suit based on a wrongful termination of his employment, that he was only an officer of the Travancore-Cochin State Forces, that he never became an officer of the Indian Army as such and that he could not claim the pay or pension or other privileges accorded to the officers of the Indian Army.