K P JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is submitted on 28-121956 by the petitioner K. P. Joshi, an Ex-Sub-Inspector of Excise against the State of Madhya Pradesh for the issue of a writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other kind of writ or direction for quashing the order of the Commissioner, Customs and Excise, dated 25-2-1955 directing the retrenchment of the petitioner on the ground that he belonged to the staff of the customs department which was being wound up due to abolition of custom duty in the State of Madhya Bharat, and for direction that the petitioner ought to be treated as being in service in the same condition in which he was on 31-3-1955.

(2.) The petitioner's case in brief is that the petitioner, who had been employed as Excise Sub-Inspector in the erstwhile Holkar State prior to its merger in the State of Madhya Bharat, had received special training at Nagpur for the job; that after merger he continued to work in that capacity in Madhya Bharat; that however for administrative reasons the departments of Customs and Excise were brought under a single head of the department; that by virtue of the order No. 2914 dated 8-3-1952 there was separation of cadre and the making of postings of the personnel in different departments which had been brought under a single department head; that in this separation of cadre and postings the petitioner was put in his own department or section and was posted as Sub- Inspector, Excise; that later in January 1955 he was made an Excise-Inspector and was posted at Shivapuri, but a short while later the petitioner was served with a notice in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner dated 25-2-1955 for his retrenchment in terms of Rule No. 72 of the Pension Manual.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that he had always from the beginning of his service career, belonged to and worked as an excise officer and had never belonged to the department or section of Customs and he could not have been retrenched under Rule 72 of Pension Manual on the ground that the department of customs was to be wound up from 1-4-1955. The petitioner states that on receipt of the notice aforesaid he relinquished the charge under protest and thereafter made several representations. After exhausting all his departmental remedies without any success he made a demand for justice through his pleader by means of a letter dated 22-9-1956 and later sent a telegraphic reminder both of which remained unanswered. The grievance of the petitioner on these facts is that although he had belonged to the department or section of excise he was retrenched on the assumption that he belonged to customs section which was to be abolished and that too after changing certain named officers from the customs section to that of excise particularly when they were senior in age and service to the petitioner. This action of the authority, according to the petitioner was neither bona fide nor just and the application of Rule 72 of the Pension Manual to his case was contrary to the letter and spirit of the said rate and invloved circumvention of Art, 311 of the Constitution. On these grounds he claimed reliefs as aforesaid.