KISHANA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has stated that he was employed by the Director of the Defence Laboratory at Jodhpur as a mechanic-mate on February 1, 1963, in the Defence Laboratory, Central Workshop, Jodhpur. He was promoted as a mechanic on January 27, 1966, and he claims that he was senior to respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 6. THEre were two sections in the Defence Laboratory, namely, the Central Workshop and the Training Aids Cell Centre, and the petitioner has stated that due to amalgamation of these two sections, some staff was retrenched and was declared surplus. This led to the issue of order Ex. 3 dated February 21, 1968 by which the petitioner among others, was given notice that his services would not be needed with effect from the for noon of April 1, 1968. Individual notices were also issued to the same effect. It was intimated that those who were desirous of alternative appointment should fill up the prescribed form before February 24, 1968. THE petitioner protested against his retrenchment, but he expressed his willingness to accept an alternative appointment in the same and equivalent grade. An order was issued for his transfer as a mechanic at VRDE, district Avadi, but it was cancelled by order Ex. 6 of March 30, 1968 and the petitioner was again informed that his services would stand terminated with effect from May 1, 1968. He was however informed that he had been posted to COD Delhi Cantt. as a fitter-mate and that he should join that post. He was informed by memorandum Ex. 9 dated May 1, 1968, that if he did not do so, his services would be terminated on the afternoon of April 30,1968. He made representation Ex. 11 dated May 3,1968, in which he pointed out that the alternative appointment amounted to reversion to a lower rank, and that he was only prepared to accept a post of equivalent status. That representation was rejected by memorandum Ex. 12 dated May 13, 1968. THE petitioner made some representations thereafter. He was ultimately informed by memorandum Ex. 14 dated August 21 1968 that at the Training Aids Cell in which he was working had been wound up from April 1, 1968, his services were terminated because he had refused to accept the job which had been offered at COD Delhi Cantt. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present petition for a redress of his grievance, on a number of grounds. I shall refer to those grounds which have been selected by his learned counsel for my consideration.

(2.) BEFORE doing so it may be mentioned that the first two respondents have filed a joint reply stating that the petitioner was a temporary employee and that he was retrenched in preference to respondents Nos. 3 to 8 in accordance with the army instructions As regards the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment as a mechanic at VRDE, Avadi, it has been stated that this had to be so because the vacancy ceased to exist. I shall refer to the other parts of the reply when I deal with the arguments. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has filed a rejoinder, and an affidavit dated January 2, 1973, while the respondents have also filed affidavits, one of the affidavits has been filed by respondent No. 2 in pursuance of an order of the Court dated September 6, 1972, by which learned Deputy Government Advocate was required to file an affidavit in regard to the nature of the functions of the Defence Laboratory.