RAMESH CHANDRA SINGH Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal, he having failed to get relief from the lower appellate court. The plaintiff came to the court on the allegations that he had been appointed as a Garden Supervisor on 10-9-62 and his father was also working as office Superintendent in the defendant's Institute. In June 1964 Sri S. C. Gupta was appointed Director of the Institute. Plaintiff's father Suba Singh also retired from the Institute and was reappointed as Head Assistant in the Sugar Technologists Association of India, Kanpur, and later on he became Head Assistant-cum-Accountant. Sri S. C. Gupta was elected Hony. Secretary of the Association in 1964 but for some reason his relations with the plaintiff's father became strained and on that account plaintiff's father was removed from the service. Because of those bad relations with the plaintiff's father, Sri Gupta also had a feeling of suspicion against the plaintiff and caused unreasonable and illegal loss to him. It is alleged that on 1- 2-67 the plaintiff was served with an office order of date informing him that the office of Garden Supervisor will stand abolished with effect from 1-3-67 and that the plaintiff was being given a notice under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and the services of the plaintiff were terminated with effect from the date of the service of the notice on him. In the notice it was stated that the plaintiff would be paid a month's salary and allowance in lieu of the notice period. The plaintiff filed the present suit challenging the said order on a number of grounds including that the order was by way of punishment and no opportunity to show cause had been given to him, that the order was hit by Rules 14,15,34 and 37 of the aforesaid rules and also by Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. It was also alleged that the removal of the plaintiff was in violation of Ss. 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The plaintiff further alleged that the order was mala fide and against the principle of natural justice, equity and good conscience and lastly that the notice had been issued without payment of one month's salary in lieu thereof and as such the same was invalid.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant. The allegations made by the plaintiffs were denied. It was stated that the post had been abolished by the Government and therefore, he did not have any right to remain in service, the removal was not on account of any malice by way of penalty but was in conformity with the nature of service conditions, the services of the plaintiff were not governed by the Industrial Disputes Act and he was not workman within the meaning of that Acts.

(3.) The trial court framed 4 issues but we are concerned with issue No. 1 only. It was held that Sri S. C. Gupta had no malice against the plaintiff and that various incidents of harassment as alleged by the plaintiff were not proved. The post of the plaintiff was also not abolished at the instance of Sri Gupta with effect from 1-3-67, the plaintiff was also not a quasi-permanent employee. The trial court also held that the order of removal was not hit by Art. 311 (2) or by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The trial court, however, decreed the suit on the ground that the order was not issued in accordance with the rules and it was necessary that either the one month's notice should have been given to the plaintiff or at the time of serving notice one month's salary and dues should have been offered to the plaintiff and since this has not been done the removal order was invalid. On this ground the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. In appeal by the Union of India the court, while endorsing the finding of the trial court on other points, reversed the finding regarding illegality of the notice and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court has held that subsequent to the decision reported in AIR 1972 S C 1487 : (1972 Lab IC 826) the Central Government has retrospectively amended the said rule and the action of the Union in the instant ca^e was, therefore, valid. The plaintiff, therefore, feeling aggrieved has filed the present appeal.