J D VORA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioners above named for appropriate writ, order or direction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring that the office order dated 2.3.1988 of the Dy.General Manager, office order dated 16.9.1989 of the General Manager and order dated 11.8.1992 of the Company Secretary of the Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation amending the T.A. Rules and Holiday Rules adversely affecting the petitioners are unconstitutional, null and void being in excess of the authority vested in them and in disregard to the principles of natural justice. The petitioners have also prayed for appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent Corporation to enforce the Service Rules of 1975 as framed and adopted by the Board of Directors of Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation in favour of the petitioners and to cancel and set aside the office order referred to hereinabove issued by the subordinate officers on the ground that they contravene the decision of the Board of Directors of the Corporation under which the service rules-1975 have been introduced by the Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation. The petitioners have further prayed for directing the respondent Corporation to compensate the petitioners who have been denied the Government Holidays under illegal orders of subordinate officers of the Corporation by forcing them to work on Government holidays. That the earned leave to the credit of petitioners be increased by such number of days on which the petitioners worked, or in lieu of them the petitioners be compensated in the shape of cash payment for having worked on Government holidays as admissible under Rules in force.

(2.) The petitioners herein were working in different categories in the employment of the Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation (for Short, 'the Corporation') which is a State oriented Corporation. The first respondent is State of Gujarat, second respondent is the Managing Director of the aforesaid Corporation and the third respondent is the General Manager of the said Corporation.

(3.) The petitioners have contended in their petitions that the respondent Corporation has framed service rules and adopted the same from 1975 providing for the governance of service conditions of its employees. The said rules may be briefly referred to as "the said rules". The petitioners contended that the respondent Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, the respondent Corporation is supposed to act in a fair and just manner. It is also contended by the petitioners that the respondents have enacted the aforesaid service rules of 1975 which have been placed at Annexure 'A' at page 23. That under the said rules, the petitioners were entitled to certain benefits. It is further contended that as per the said service rules, the power to amend the rules has been conferred upon the Corporation itself and, therefore, it cannot be exercised by any other authorities subordinate to the said Corporation. it is further contended that under the said Rules, the petitioners are entitled to travelling allowance as enumerated in rules 43 onwards of the Service Rules. That the said services rules have not been amended by the respondent corporation but some amendments have been made by the Subordinate officers. That the said officer had no authority to alter or amend the said service rules with respect to the payability of Travelling Allowance to the petitioners. It is also contended by the petitioners that the officers of the respondents have also modified the service rules with respect to the holidays to be observed by the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners were entitled to holidays as per the service rules but by the aforesaid office order, they have been deprived of closed Saturdays i.e. second and fourth and other holidays enumerated in order dated 2.3.1988 placed at Annexure 'B' at page 49. The petitioners contended that the officer issuing the said office order was not entitled to issue such an order since it amounted to altering the service rules. That the said authorities had no power, authority or function to amend or modify the service rules of 1975. It is further contended by the petitioners that by the aforesaid order dated 2.3.1988 the said officer of the respondent Corporation has issued direction for payment of permanent Travelling Allowance. The petitioners contended that the provisions have been made in the service rules for payment of Travelling Allowance and by the aforesaid order of 2.3.1988, the officer of the respondent Corporation has provided that the petitioners would be entitled to permanent Travelling Allowance as stated in the said order. It is again stated by the petitioners that the said officer had no jurisdiction to alter the service rules and, therefore, the rules relating to payment of Travelling Allowance to the petitioners could not have been amended by the said officer of the respondent Corporation. It is further contended that the officer of the respondent Corporation has also issued an order for non-private practice allowance on 16.9.1989. It is also contended that further orders were passed for holidays and permanent Travelling Allowance by the officer of the respondent Corporation on 6/11.8.1992. The petitioners have contended that the aforesaid orders passed by the subordinate officers of the respondent Corporation adversely affecting the service conditions of the petitioners. It is further contended that as said above, only the Corporation itself could amend the service rules applicable to the petitioners and, therefore, the subordinate officers of the respondent Corporation could not amend the rules and, therefore, the orders passed by the subordinate officers of the respondent Corporation amending the rules are illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, they deserve to be quashed and set aside. It is further contended that the service rules could not be altered or amended so as to adversely affect the interest and service conditions of the petitioners and, therefore, the said amendment in service rules is illegal from that angle also. It is, therefore, contended that the aforesaid orders issued by the officers of the respondent Corporation are illegal and without jurisdiction and without any authority of law and, therefore, the petitioners have prayed that those orders referred to hereinabove be quashed and set aside by appropriate writ, order or direction. It is further contended that the respondent Corporation be directed to follow the service rules of 1975. It is further contended that since the petitioners were denied Government holidays, they may be adequately compensated by appropriate orders.