Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
J.Rangaraj vs The A.P. State Handloom Weavers Coop. ... on 31 October, 2012
Author: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P.No.17894 of 2000 31-10-2012 J.Rangaraj The A.P. State Handloom Weavers Coop. Society (APCO) Fabrics Offering Handloom Fabrics in the State), Hyderabad. <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.Venkataramana Counsel for the respondent: Sri T.Venkata Raju Goud ?Cases referred 1.AIR 1972 S.C. 2641 ORDER:
In this writ petition an order passed by the respondent in reference No.4/99/Admin.1(5)CO/2000/3066, dated 15-09-2000 terminating the service of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Designer is challenged on the ground that the said termination is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as Assistant Designer with all consequential benefits including the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Designer by an order of appointment dated 11-03-1986. Clause 4 of the said appointment order reads as follows:
"During the period of probation, his appointment, will be liable to be terminated without notice. There after his appointment will be liable to be terminated at two months' notice on either side or on payment of pay and Dearness Allowance in lieu thereof."
The petitioner completed the period of probation and by proceedings dated 28-10- 1987 his services were confirmed. Fourteen years later, the impugned order dated 15-09-2000 was issued terminating the petitioner's services on the ground that the said post of Assistant Designer was originally approved for creation by the National Development Cooperative Corporation, New Delhi with 100% assistance for the first five years and 80% assistance for the next two years, that subsequently, the Central Government subsidy was stopped and in spite of that the petitioner was continued in service for a further period of seven years, that the Central Government has since stopped its assistance and the Apex Society has no need to continue this post and the State Government has abolished the post on completion of fourteen years. The impugned order states that the respondent had no alternative on account of abolition of post and was constrained to terminate the services of the petitioner by giving two months' salary in lieu of notice with effect from 30-09-2000.
3. The petitioner contends that this order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and it is arbitrary and illegal on the part of the respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner after he had put in fourteen years of service in the respondent organization.
4. The respondent has filed a counter contending that the Rashtriya Sahakari Vikas Nigam (National Cooperative Development Corporation (Industries Division)), New Delhi, through its Managing Director had conveyed to the Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioning a scheme called NCDC sponsored scheme for the development of Handloom Cooperatives and creation of posts under Technical and Promotional Cell in Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Limited and sanctioned the same, that as per the letter dated 18-03-1985, one post of Assistant Designer in the scale of Rs.1050-1600 was sanctioned, that in para 2 of the said letter, it is clearly stated that the assistance for the posts sanctioned would be available from the date of issue of appointment letter or the actual date of joining of the person which ever is later, that the Corporation would provide subsidy to the extent of 100% for the first five years and 80% for the next two years of the expenditure incurred on pay and allowances, that thereafter, the posts were filled up and that an offer of appointment was made to the petitioner. He replied by a telegram stating "appointment accepted if appointment is on permanent basis instead of on contract for three years", that on 07-05-1986 he was informed that any person appointed will be on probation for a minimum period of one or two years as the case may be and then regularized in case his services are found to be satisfactory and that it was made clear that no employee would be appointed on permanent basis. It is stated that the Central Government had stopped to grant given to it and State Government is also not willing to pay or release any grant insofar as continuity of this post is concerned. It is also stated that the respondent-Society is over staffed and is thinking of a possibility of reducing its staff and also introducing a voluntarily retirement scheme as it has no financial capacity to continue petitioner in service or continue the post on its own without subsidy being paid by the Government of India or by the State Government. It is also contended that the decision to abolish the posts was on account of above reason and cannot be said to be arbitrary or malafide. It is also contended that there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. Heard Sri V.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Venkata Raju Goud, learned standing counsel for the respondent.
6. The learned counsel for both parties reiterated the contentions raised by them in the respective pleadings.
7. It is clear that the post of Assistant Designer was initially created in the respondent organization in the year 1985 as the National Cooperative Development Corporation (Handloom Industries Division), New Delhi agreed for providing subsidy to the extent of 100% for the post for five years and 80% for the following two years of the expenditure incurred on pay and allowances. Subsequently, the petitioner was selected and clause 4 of his appointment order specifically stated that this appointment is liable to be terminated at two months' notice of either side and on payment of pay and D.A. thereof. Subsequently, the Government of India stopped the grant given by it and the State was also unwilling to pay or release any grant for continuance of the post. In view of the fact that the respondent organization was also over staffed and had no financial capacity to continue the petitioner in service or continuity the post on its own without subsidy being given by the Government of India or by the State Government, a decision was taken to abolish the post and consequent to such abolition, the respondent was constrained to pass the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner by giving him two months' time in lieu of notice with effect from 30-09-2000.
8. In N.Ramanathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Another1, the Supreme Court has held that power to create or abolish the post is not related to doctrine of pleasure, that it is a matter of Governmental policy and every sovereign Government has this power in the interest and necessity of internal administration. It held that the creation or abolition of post is dictated by policy decision, exigencies of circumstances and administrative necessity and that creation, continuance and the abolition of posts are all decided by the Government in the interest of administration and general public. At para 33, it held as follows:
"Where it was said in Moti Ram Deka case, (1964) 5 SCR 683 = AIR 1964 S.C. 600 (Supra) that the order of termination could be effective after complying with Article 311 it was presumed that the provisions of Article 311, viz., issue of the charge-sheet, enquiry would be applicable to such cases of termination. With regard to abolition of post and consequential termination no charges could normally be framed and no enquiry could be held. Therefore, apart from the consideration that abolition of post is not infliction of a penalty like dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the framing of charge, the enquiry and opportunity of showing cause against the imposition of penalty cannot normally apply to the case of abolition of post. The discharge of the civil servant on account of abolition of the post held by him is not an action which is proposed to be taken as a personal Penalty but it is an action concerning the policy of the State whether a permanent post should continue or not."
Again at para 36, it was held as follows:
"The abolition of post may have the consequence of termination of service of a government servant. Such termination is not dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. The opportunity of showing cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal or removal does not therefore arise in the case of abolition of post. The abolition of post is not a personal penalty against the government servant. The abolition of post is an executive policy decision. Whether after abolition of the post. the Government servant who was holding the post would or could be offered any employment under the State would therefore be a matter of policy decision of the Government because the abolition of post does not confer on the person holding the abolished post any right to hold the post. The High Court was correct in holding that no estoppel could arise against the State in regard to abolition of post. The appellant Ramanathan Pillai Knew that the post was temporary."
The above judgment applies on all fours to this case.
9. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the termination of the services of the petitioner consequent to the abolition of the post of Assistant Designer on account of lack of grant of funds from the Central Government or State Government is arbitrary, illegal or that it is in violation of principles of natural justice.
10. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. The writ petition is without any merit and is therefore dismissed. No costs.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 31-10.2012