JABOOLAL CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of WP(C) Nos. 1038 (AP) 2001 1066 (AP) 2001, 174 (AP) 2000, 54 (AP) 2000, 52 (AP) 2000, 180 (AP) 2000, 63 (AP) 2000, 181 (AP) 2000, 125 (AP) 2001,877 (AP) 2001, 868 (AP) 2001,2213 (AP) 2000, 06 (AP) 2002, 367 (AP) 2002, 569 (AP) 2001,205(AP) 2001 and 75 (AP) 2002.

(2.) An employer may find it difficult to carry on financial burden of an employee, but to get rid of the employee concerned, recourse to appropriate provisions of law is essential; otherwise, the action may become arbitrary and untenable in law. An employer's objective in removing the employee may be desirable, but the recourse taken by it to a particular provision of law may, for this purpose, not be applicable and it is really for the employer to choose the ways and means, permissible in law, to get rid of the financial burden, which it has to bear in order to maintain its work force. The present one is one of those few cases, where the object of an employer may not be objected to, but the method adopted by the employer may not stand the scrutiny of law.

(3.) In the case at hand, a number of employees are sought to be retired by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The recourse for this purpose has purportedly been taken to FR 56(j). Whether this recourse, on the part of the Government, to the provisions of FR 56 (j) is sustainable in law is the question, which this writ petition raises.