GANGADHARA KURUP Vs. DY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, five in number, were employed in the office of the Accountant-General, Trivandrum . THEy were all temporary employees. Though they had completed 3 years of service, none of them had been made quasi-permanent and they continued as temporary employees.

(2.) IN April 1972 the General Secretary of the N. G O. Association of the Accountant-General's office was dismissed from service under art. 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution of INdia under the extra-ordinary powers of the President. This led to an agitation among the employees of the accountant-General's office. The N. G. O. Association had called for an agitation for compelling the Government to re-instate the dismissed General Secretary. The agitation led to the suspension of 13 members of the association. On 6173, three out of the 13 suspended employees were served with notices of show cause as to why they should not be dismissed from service. IN protest against these actions the association called for 'pendown' strike. The petitioners allege that the entire members of the Association responded to the call and participated in the strike. There were demonstrations and other forms of agitation for the reinstatement of the dismissed and suspended employees.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, subsequently the dispute which led to the termination of their services was settled at the intervention of certain members of the Parliament belonging to the Congress Party and some terms of settlement were arrived at on 24 21973. Ex-P9 is the true copy of the terms of settlement. As per the same the staff who were transferred to the 'out audit Department' during January 1973 would be brought back to the headquarters, that the salary during work-to-rule period would be paid on certain conditions, that favourable recommendation would be made to the comptroller and Auditor-General and the Government of India for relaxations of the rule regarding Pendown strike pay on certain condition, that the 20 suspended employees would be reinstated within one month and that representations from the petitioners whose services were terminated under R. 5 would be forwarded to the 2nd respondent with necessary comments. Petitioners accordingly submitted representations to the 2nd respondent through the 1st respondent, wherein they prayed for re-instatement in service in accordance with the spirit of the settlement. Ex-P10 is the copy of the representation which had been filed by the Ist petitioner. Other petitioners had also filed similar representations. However, on 27 61974 the 1st respondent informed the petitioners that the 2nd respondent in exercise of powers vested in him under r. 5 (2) of the Rules had confirmed the orders of termination. Exs-P11, P12, P13, p14 and P15 are the copy of the memoes so issued to the petitioners.