SALEEM Vs. ATOMIC ENERGY EDUCATION SOCIETY MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both these writ petitions are working as Sweeper-cum-Farash in Atomic Energy Education Society. The petitioner in WP No.24910 of 2002 was appointed as such on 6.3.1991 and the petitioner in the other writ petition was appointed in the year 1988 and they are discharging their duties in the respondent Society at Hyderabad. By virtue of the impugned orders, in public interest, the petitioner in WP No.24910 of 2002 was transferred to Jaduguda, Mumbai and the petitioner in the other writ petition was transferred to Mysore. Assailing the correctness of these transfer orders, the petitioners have filed these two writ petitions, contending that the basic pay drawn by the petitioner in WP No.24910 of 2002 is Rs.3,200/- and he draws a gross salary of Rs.5,000/- and his carry home salary is Rs.3,300/- per month. The petitioner submits that though he is a low paid employee, he was transferred along with six others through proceedings dated 14.5.2002 from the third respondent college to AECS(E/M) Jaduguda, Mumbai, and in compliance of the same, the reported at the place. Thereafter, when there was no vacancy, he was again transferred to Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai and assigned the duties which are unconnected to his nature of post, for which the petitioner was appointed, as a result of which the petitioner suffered serious ill-health and bed-ridden. It is further submitted that his family consists of wife and small children aged 5 years and studying at Hyderabad, that when he received phone call from his wife stating that she is unwell, he sought for the grant of leave and when it was refused, he was compelled to proceed to Hyderabad, as there is no elder member to lookafter his family and through telegram dated 10.9.2002 sought for leave. It is further submitted that the second respondent agreed to absorb the petitioner through their proceedings AEES-CAO-2002/8334 dated 2.1.2002 at Hyderabad, in pursuance of the decision taken in the meeting held on 20.7.2001. Contrary to the same, the petitioner was transferred. It is further averred that the juniors of the petitioners i.e., Mr. Narsing Rao, Mr. Raj Gopal and Mr. Sukesh were retained and accommodated in AECS-III School consequent to the alleged closure of AEJC College and therefore, submitted that retaining juniors at Hyderabad and transferring the senior members like the petitioners is discriminatory and prejudice to the petitioners' interest and offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that though the 3rd respondent submitted a proposal dated 3.9.2001 to the first respondent to transfer our services to the Nuclear Fuel Complex, but the same was not acted upon and the low paid employees like the petitioners were mercilessly transferred to the Metropolitan City at Mumbai, which resulted in severe hardships in sustaining with meager salary where cost of living is at peak. It is also submitted that the Nuclear Fuel Complex has agreed to absorb such of those surplus staff as identified by the 3rd respondent college, but the first respondent while doing so, did not prepare any seniority list of the employees but retained junior employees in the third respondent college and illegally transferred the petitioners.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in WP No.25382 of 2002 is similar. He was transferred by proceedings dated 4.9.2002 along with six others to AECS(E/M) College, Mysore, though he is also low paid employee. Though the reported to duty at the transferred place, as there was no vacancy, he was assigned duties which are not connected to his post and as such he fell sick and consequently he came to Hyderabad on leave.

(3.) In reply to the averments made in the affidavits, the respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit raising usual objection that the Atomic Energy Education Society was registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and it is an autonomous body. As per the objects and reasons, the said society runs various schools for the benefit of the children of the employees of the Department of Atomic Energy and others. It is further submitted that the Society has a responsibility of running about 30 schools at 14 different stations in different parts of India. It is also stated that the schools are primarily meant for the children of the employees of the Department of Atomic Energy, but also provide education to several other categories of children, including the children of weaker sections of the society and, therefore, it does not come within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is not maintainable. It is further averred that it is a settled principle of law that the Society does not fall within the meaning of State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution, in view of the following judgments: