Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Action Committee Of Employees And ... vs The Andhra Pradesh Employees' Welfare ... on 14 June, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(3)ALT463, (1997)ILLJ647AP
Author: B. Subhashan Reddy
Bench: B. Subhashan Reddy
JUDGMENT
1. In both these writ petitions, the 1st petitioner is common. In these writ petitions, common questions arise for consideration and therefore, they can be conveniently disposed of together.
2. In Writ Petition No. 10647/1995 the petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Memo issued by the 2nd respondent-State Government in Memo No. 25523/13/PC.I/APEWF/94 dated May 10, 1995 and quash the same by declaring it as unjust, unfair and illegal.
3. In Writ Petition No. 24556 of 1995 the petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and call for the connected records and declare the order of the 2nd respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 137 Fin. & Plg. (FW.PC.I) Dept. dated May 24, 1995 as illegal, arbitrary and capricious. The petitioner also prays for a consequential direction declaring sanctioning of loans by the respondents herein to all the recognised service Associations for the construction of Rest Houses etc., as illegal and void.
4. Few relevant facts may be necessary for the adjudication of the issue that arises for consideration in both these writ petitions.
5. The Rules of Andhra Pradesh Employees Welfare Fund as approved by the Government were notified in G.O. (P) No. 173 dated May 28, 1980. The preamble to the Rules as notified by the Government of Andhra Pradesh declares that :
"During the course of a statement made in the Legislative Assembly on March 16, 1979, the Chief Minister announced, among other items, that the employees' representatives had readily agreed to take up a Scheme for setting up a Welfare Fund for non-gazetted and last grade employees at his suggestion, that the intention was that the Fund should constitute a corpus, the interest on which could be utilised for various welfare activities of the employees and for interest free loans for purposes such as marriages or education of children, etc., that the Fund would be administered by a Committee comprising representatives of various Service Associations under the Chairmanship of the Finance Secretary and that further details of the Fund and the manner in which it should be operated would have to be worked out".
6. A perusal of the Rules would make it clear that the income from the fund shall have to be utilised for the sanction of the loans or grants to the members or for any Schemes intended for the general welfare of the employees. The Rules further provide that the loans shall be granted at normal rate of interest or at concessional rate of interest or without interest to the members as may be prescribed and the maximum limit of loan should not exceed Rs. 5,000/- in any one case and the period of repayment shall not exceed the maximum period of five years. Outright grants may be made to the members or the families or dependents of a deceased employee for such purposes as may be prescribed by the State Committee from time to time but not exceeding Rs. 1,000/- in any one case. The Rules further mandate that the assistance from the Fund in the form of loans or grants shall be extended broadly for medical and educational purposes, ceremonies and other rituals in the family. However, the Rules further stipulate that no loan or grant from the Fund shall he admissible for Purposes of construction, extension or repairs to houses. The fund has to be administered by the State Level Committee consisting of the following members :
|----------------------------------------------|--------------------| |(a) Chief Secretary to Government | Chairman | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------| |(b) Principal Secretary to | Vice Chairma | |Government Finance and planning | | |Department | | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------| |(c) Deputy Secretary to Government, | Member Secretary | |Finance and Planning Department | Cum-Treasurer | |(Nominated by the Principal | | |Secretary, Finance and Planning | | |Department). | | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------| |(d) Deputy Secretary to Government, | Member | |General Administration | | |(Welfare) Department | | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------| |(e) Representatives of the Employees viz. - | | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------| |(i) All the employees' representative | Member | |on the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service | | |Joint Staff Council from time to time | | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------| |(ii) A representative of the Gazetted | Member | | officer | | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------| |(iii) A representative of Local Bodies | Member | | Employees other than teacher | | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------| |(iv) A representative of the Work-Charged | Member | | employees | | |----------------------------------------------|--------------------| The Member Secretary-cum-Treasurer shall be the convenor of the State Committee.
The corpus fund shall constitute (i) the Contribution by the members (ii) Grants by the Government and (iii) Voluntary contributions or donations by the persons other than the members. The interest on the corpus fund in each year is the income from the fund. The interest from the corpus of the fund only should be utilised for various welfare activities of the employees and loans for the purpose, such as marriages, education of children and medical assistance. An important aspect that has to he noticed in this regard is that membership of this fund is compulsory to all employees other than All India Service Officers. Each employee should contribute an initial contribution of Rs. 25/- which is subsequently enhanced to Rs. 50/- from April, 1992. The annual contribution was Rs. 5/- per annum till February, 1992 and the same has been increased to Rs. 10/- with effect from March, 1992 onwards. A sum of Rs. 25/- being the interim relief to the month of March, 1979 payable to the members constitutes the initial contribution by members. In fact the statement made by the Chief Minister on the floor of the House on March 16, 1979 states that as a gesture, the Government agreed to pay the interim relief from March 1, 1979, on the condition that this one month's relief amounting to about Rs. 1.42 crores will be credited towards the initial corpus of the fund. Virtually this interim relief amounting to Rs. 1.42 crores payable to the employees of the State Government was made available as interim relief for the said purpose of constituting the corpus fund.
7. As it has already been noticed that the fund is to be administered by the State Level Committee constituted for the purpose of which the Chief Secretary is the Chairman and the Principal Secretary to the Finance and Planning to be the Vice-Chairman apart from the representatives of the employees including the Local Bodies and Work-Charged employees.
8. A reading of the aims and objects for which the Welfare Fund has been constituted and the scheme of the Rules would suggest that the main purpose for which the fund can be utilised is for providing assistance broadly for medical and educational purposes, ceremonies and other rituals in the family. The assistance from the fund shall have to be strictly on the basis of merit of each member and the acute distress in which the member may find himself. In this regard, the Committee constituted for the purpose shall have to take into account, the assistance that is available to the employees from other known sources such as Provident Fund, Government loan and other similar sources before any assistance is granted from the Welfare Fund. The scheme of the Rules postulate that every employee or the family or dependent of a deceased employee seeking assistance from the Welfare Fund shall have to apply in the prescribed form and submit an application in this regard to the Member Secretary-cum-Treasurer of the concerned committee. The amount of the fund so sanctioned by the concerned committee shall have to be released through a cheque to the beneficiary by the authorised person of the concerned committee after all other formalities, as prescribed, are completed by the applicant. All loans recoverable from the members of the fund shall be recovered by the Disbursing Officer of the Office to which the members belong every month at the time of disbursement of their salaries and the money so recovered shall be remitted to the Committee by the 5th of every month. it is thus clear that the object and the purpose for which the income of the fund can be utilised is very clearly prescribed and the dominant object appears to be to provide assistance to the members of the fund namely, the Employees, for medical and educational purposes, ceremonies and other rituals in the family. Invariably the amount so advanced from the welfare fund is to be recovered from the concerned employees. There is a clear bar that the corpus fund shall not be normally utilised for extending assistance to the members except under special circumstances and if the said Committee so decides, the corpus fund to an extent of 25% can be utilised for the purpose of granting loans provided the loans so granted shall carry a rate of interest which shall not be less than what the investment of the Corpus earns by way of interest.
9. A reading of the Rules and the scheme would further reveal that the membership of the fund is made compulsory to all employees, permanent, regular and temporary of Government, Local Bodies and Work-charged and Contingent employees and employees of aided institutions' who were in service between March 1, 1979 and March 31, 1979 and on whose behalf the interim relief amounting to Rs. 1.42 crores has been contributed to the Fund and also such of the employees who may be appointed on or after April 1, 1979 in the categories of establishments referred to here in above. Every member of the Fund shall have to contribute a sum of Rs. 5/- every year.
10. The complaint in the instant writ petitions is that the State Level Committee constituted under the A.P. Employees' Welfare Fund Rules, 1980 in its meeting held on October 7, 1992 has resolved and decided :
(a) that a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs be sanctioned to the A.P.N.G.O's Association for construction of Rest Rooms as requested by the Association;
(c) that every year, two Associations be sanctioned Loans for construction of Rest Rooms;
(d) that a simple interest of 6% per annum he charged on the Loans sanctioned from the Fund; and
(e) that the Loan sanctioned from the Fund be repaid in half yearly instalments, within a period of five years.
Accordingly cheques for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs each were issued to the A.P.N.G.Os' and T.N.G.Os' Associations towards the first instalment on October 13, 1992. A protest was launched by the petitioners and other organisations in this regard, but the same was ignored and the second instalment was also released to the said two Associations on April 15, 1993. It is stated that the State Level Committee in its meeting held on October 6, 1993 had further resolved that pending finalisation of the modalities to be worked out, further amount Rs. 5.00 lakh each be sanction to the said two Association toward third third instalment and accordingly cheques were also issued for the said sum on October 20, 1993.
11. The petitioners objected to the said sanction and submitted that the action of the State Level Committee 1st respondent herein is totally illegal, ultra vires the A.P. Employees' Welfare Fund Rules, 1980.
12. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that in all about 111 lakhs are sanctioned by the 1st respondent State Level Committee for the construction of Rest Houses and two Kalyana Mandaapams, out of which Rs. 88.50 lakhs were already released in favour of the respective Associations. The loans are recoverable in five years commencing from next month of release of the 2nd instalment and carries a simple interest of 6% per annum and the recovery of interests shall commence after the principal amount is recovered. The loan is recoverable in half yearly instalments. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the intention of sanctioning of loan to the Associations for construction of Rest Houses is that providing accommodation at State Headquarters to the Government Employees who are all members of Employees' Welfare Fund is also a welfare activity and instead of undertaking the construction programme by the Committee itself, it would be enough if Associations undertake such constructions of rest houses for the welfare of the employees.
13. It is also averred that as per the guidelines laid down by the State Level Committee, the Associations would have to refund the loan within a stipulated period of five years and in this regard, the Associations have agreed that each of their members will pay Rs. 10/- as one time contribution for repayment of loan. The collection of Rs. 10/- from each member of the Association by themselves is a difficult task and instead an easier method to collect Rs. 10/- from the pay bill was adopted with a view to recover the entire, amount and the said amount can be set off from the loan taken by the Association. At the request of the State Level Committee, the Government issued instructions in Memo No. 25523/137/PC.1/94 dated May 10, 1995.
14. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondents does not explain as to how the amount could have been sanctioned by the 1st respondent-Committee for the purpose of construction of Rest House by some Employees' Associations when the Rules clearly stipulate that the fund can be only utilised by the members of the Welfare Fund by way of assistance as a loan for the specified purposes, such as, education, medical, health and other family necessities.
15. A close scrutiny and analysis of the sub-missions made on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is clear that the action of the State Level Committee in releasing the funds for the construction of Rest Houses and Kalyana Mandapams is ultra vires the A.P. Employees' Welfare Fund Rules, 1980. The State Level Committee has no such power, or jurisdiction. It is no doubt true that under the Rules, the State Level Committee is the Supreme authority to administer the fund including the investment of the monies of the fund. It has the power to lay down the policies of the fund, compute the resources available for each year, allocate the available resources to the various districts and the twin cities for the purposes of the Fund, keeping in view the need for equitable distribution of the available funds among all the districts and the twin cities, sanction assistance by way of loans or grants beyond the limit, as may be prescribed, for the District Committees or Twin Cities Committee or for specific purposes, which may exclusively be vested in the Committee. This power is conferred upon the State Level Committee by Rule 11 of the said Rules. It is true that the Committee is authorised to sanction assistance by way of loan and also grant beyond the limit, as may be prescribed. The expression loans and grants beyond the limit used in Rule 11 is to he understood in its proper context and in the fight of the scheme of the Rules and the purposes for which the fund is constituted. A reading of the unamended Rules 6, 7, 19, 20 and 21 of the Rules would make it clear that the income from the Welfare Fund can be utilised only by way of sanction and grant of loans as a measure of assistance to the needy and deserving employees who are the members of the Welfare Fund. In my considered opinion the income of the Welfare fund cannot be utilised for any other purposes particularly for the purpose of construction of Rest Houses at various places in the State. It is rather difficult to appreciate as to how the construction of a Rest House can be construed as a welfare measure. At any rate, suffice it to hold that the Rules do not contemplate the utilisation of the income from the Welfare fund for such purpose. Therefore, the action of the 1st respondent committee in sanctioning the loan for the aforesaid purposes for construction of Rest Houses, Kalyana Mandapams, cannot be countenanced and the said action is ultra vires the A.P. Employees' Welfare Fund Rules, 1980.
16. However, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State with his usual precision and clarity submits that the writ petitions are totally misconceived and not maintainable in law. The learned Advocate General submits that the Rules in question are not framed by the Government in exercise of statutory power traceable to any of the Statue. The Rules are more or less in the nature of bye-laws of an Association or a Society and therefore, they are not enforceable by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Advocate General submits that even if there is any infraction of any one or all the Rules, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available. The learned Advocate General relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and others v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in which the Apex Court held that :
"The bye-laws that are contemplated by the Act can be merely those which govern the internal management, business or administration of a Society. They may be binding between the persons affected by them, but they do not have the force of a statue. The bye-laws that can be framed by a Society,, under the Act are similar in nature to the Articles of Association of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and such Articles of Association have never been held to have the force of law."
There is no dispute with the proposition, but the question in the instant case is as to whether can it be said that the A.P. Employees' Welfare Fund Rules, 1980 are in the nature of any bye-laws or Rules of an Association as such. There is no Association or any Society as such formed under any act and registered as such either under the Companies Act or the Societies Registration Act. On the other hand, the membership of the fund is made compulsory to all the employees permanent, regular and temporary of Government, Local Bodies and employees of aided Institutions other than the teaching Staff and every such employee is compulsorily made to contribute amounts to the fund and such contribution once paid shall not be repaid to any member under any circumstances. This contribution constitutes one of the major ingredients of the corpus of the fund and it is the interest that is earned on the corpus of the fund in each year is deemed to be the income from the fund and it is that income alone which can be utilised for the sanction of loans or grants to the members or for any scheme intended for the general Welfare of the employees. Thus there is an element of compulsion, compelling each employee of the State Government to be a member of the welfare fund and there is further compulsion that each such employee should make contribution towards the welfare fund. In the circumstances, with great respect, it is not possible to accede to the submissions made by the learned Advocate General. None of the employees become members of the welfare fund voluntarily and make voluntary contribution as such and on the other hand, there is compulsion with regard to both the acts relating to membership and payment of contribution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the membership of the fund can be equated to that of any voluntary association or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The learned Advocate General further placed reliance upon a Full Bench Decision of this Court in Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Amalapuram and another v. N. Seetharama Raju 1990 (2) ALT 1 in which it is held that :
"Mandamus, certiorari or public law remedies, they are not available to enforce private law rights. Every act of a society, it may be a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 does not belong to public law field. A society, which is a 'State' might have based private law rights unlike a Government. The contractual obligation, which is not statutory, cannot be enforced by way of a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution."
The question in the instant writ petition is slightly different and as it had already been noticed that the Rules in question are not in the nature of any contract as such. The participation of the State is very much apparent by the presence of the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning and Deputy Secretary, Finance and Planning in State Level Committee to administer the fund. An amount of Rs. 1.42 crores was deposited into the Welfare fund by the State Government when the fund was initially constituted. The initiative was taken by the then Chief Minister in constituting the Welfare fund and a statement to this effect was made on the floor of the Legislature on March 16, 1979.
17. On the other hand, Sri K. G. kannabhiran, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in one of the writ petitions submits that the Rules framed and notified by the State Government should be deemed to have been framed by the Government in exercise of its powers traceable to Arts. 162 and 166 of the Constitution of India. The argument of the learned senior Counsel proceeds as follows :
That the legislative power of the State with regard to the State public services is traceable to Entry 41 of List II of Schedule Seven of the Constitution of India and it is argued that the State Legislature would have been competent to enact any law relating to that of A.P. Employees' Welfare Fund Rules, 1980. Therefore, obviously the Executive power of the State extends to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make law. Since these Rules are drafted, approved, authenticated and notified. In the name of the Governor, they shall have to be treated as made by the State Government in exercise of its executive power.
18. A perusal of the records produced by the, Government pursuant to the Rule Nisi issued by the Court would amply demonstrate that the Rules are made and approved, notified and got printed by the State Government in the course of its normal executive business. It may not be, strictly necessary to go into the question whether' these Rules are framed by the Government in exercise of its power under Arts. 162 and 166 of the Constitution of India. I find substantial force in the submissions made by the learned senior,, Counsel Sri K. G. Kannabhiran that the Rules in' question cannot be described as bye-laws or Articles of an association, particularly in view of their binding nature. There is no doubt about the State exercising its power in making Rules, administering the funds and recovering the same from the members of the welfare fund. The State Government's involvement is so apparent at every stage. In fact the Memo dated May 10, 1995 issued by the Finance and Planning Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh commands all the drawing and disbursing Officers "to deduct Rs. 10/- from the salary of the employees payable on June 1, 1995 and the same be credited to the Heads of Accounts indicated, above ". The memo further directs the Drawing Officers to prepare a schedule indicating the above Heads of Account in which the amount has to he credited and the same may invariably be attached to the pay bill. The said memo further directs that in case of employees working in Local Bodies such as Panchayat Raj and Municipal Institutions, the Drawing and Disbursing Officers are requested to recover the same and remit the same to the Government Account by way of Challan. All the Heads of Departments are requested to bring the above instructions to the notice of their Subordinate Offices and ensure that the above amount is recovered in the Pay Bills. The Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is requested to take steps to credit the amount to the above Head of Account. The Memo dated May 10, 1995 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to recover the loans advanced to A.P.N.G.Os' and T.N.G.Os' Unions, A.P. Forest Junior Officers Association and A.P. Panchayat Raj Teachers Association etc. for the construction of Rest Houses. Obviously the whole State Government's machinery is involved in the process of recovery of the loans advanced to various employees associations by the State Level Committee of the Welfare Fund under the Rules. The learned senior Counsel Sri K. G. Kannabbiran, is right in submitting that the A.P. Employees Welfare Fund Rules, 1980 do not operate in any private law field but in the public law field. The Government is actively involved and its functionaries represent the Government at various stages in administering the Rules. It is therefore, not. possible to reject the writ petition as not maintainable. Necessary and appropriate directions by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued.
19. The next question arises for consideration is as to whether the action of the State Level Committee in sanctioning the amounts for construction of the Rest Houses and Kalyana Mandapams could be upheld and saved in view of the amendment made to Rules 6 and 7 of the A.P. Employees' Welfare Fund Rules, 1980.
20. The learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents to whom the amounts are sanctioned by the 1st respondent submits that the action of the State Level Committee in sanctioning the loans does not suffer from any infirmity what-so-ever in view of the subsequent amendment of the Rules. The learned counsel submits that even if for any reason, the sanction for the construction of the Rest Houses and Kalyana Mandapams are presumed to be contrary to Rules 6 and 7, the same has no relevance or bearing in view of the subsequent amendments. On the other hand, Sri K. G. Kannabhiran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amended Rules 6 and 7 have to be struck down as totally ultra vires, as the amendments are contrary to the whole scheme of the original Rules. According to the learned Counsel, the amended Rules are discriminatory and suffer from vice of arbitrariness and hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is doubtful, as to whether any amendment to the Rule can be questioned on the ground that the amendment violates the basic scheme and object of the rules in as much as every amendment of the Rules becomes the part of Rules. It may not be possible to import the basic structure doctrine in cases relating to amendments to ordinary Legislation and Rules. However, it may not be necessary to express any opinion in this regard, for the view I propose to take in the matter. It would be necessary to refer to the amended Rules which are as follows : To Rule 6, the following shall be added.
"After Rule 6, the following shall be added : The assistance from the fund in the form of loans may also be extended to the recognised Service Associations of the Employees. Such loans shall be granted to the Associations only for the purpose of construction of Rest Houses or Community Halls either in Twin Cities or at the District Head quarters exclusively for the use of employees for their temporary stay, subject to interest and such other terms and conditions for re-payment as may be imposed by the State Level Committee.
Under Rule 7, for the existing sentence. "The maximum of loans shall not exceed Rs. 5,000/- in case" the following shall be substituted :
"In the case of loans to Members the maximum of loan shall not exceed Rs. 25,000/- in the case of Educational advance for prosecuting higher studies abroad, and Rs. 50,000/- in the case of medical purposes in any one case and in the case of associations the maximum limit of loan shall not exceed Rs. 30.00 lakhs in any one case"
(By order and in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh)".
The amendments of the Rules are notified in G.O.Ms. No. 173, Fin. (PRC. VI) Department, dated May 18, 1980.
21. Obviously the 1st respondent-State Level Committee itself was conscious of the fact that it could not have sanctioned the loan for the construction of the Rest Houses and the agenda for the meeting of the State Level Committee held on May 3, 1995 would amply demonstrate this. Item 6 of the said agenda reads as follows :
"As the existing rules do not permit sanction of loans to recognised Service Associations for construction of Rest Houses and also sanction of loans for medical and educational purpose subject to a maximum of Rs. 50,000/-, in any one case, Rule 7 also requires amendment as the maximum amount of loan in each individual case is fixed at only Rs. 5,0001/-. It is, therefore, necessary that the above rule needs to be amended. It is accordingly proposed to amend Rules 6 and 7 under powers vested in Rule 11 of A.P. Employees Welfare Fund Rules, as follows :
Amendment :
After Rule 6, the following may be added :
"The assistance from the Fund in the form of loans may also be extended to the recognised Service Associations of the Employees. Such loans shall be granted to the Associations only for the purpose of construction of Rest Houses either in Twin Cities or at the District Headquarters exclusively for the use of employees for their temporary stay, subject to interest and such other terms and conditions for repayment as may be imposed by the State Level Committee."
Under Rule 7, for the existing sentence "the maximum limit of loans shall not exceed Rs. 5,000/- in any case", the following may be substituted :
"In the case of loans to Members, the maximum of loan shall not exceed Rs. 25,000/- in the case of educational advance for prosecuting higher studies abroad and Rs. 50,000/- in the case of Medical purposes in any one case and in the case of Associations, the maximum limit of loan shall not exceed Rs. 25 lakhs in any one case".
"The loans sanctioned for medical purposes shall carry a simple interest of 4% per annum. In the case of loans sanctioned for prosecution of higher studies abroad and also loans sanctioned to the Associations for construction of Rest Houses, a simple interest of 6% per annum or at such higher rates of interest as may be determined by the State Level Committee would be charged".
The above amendments may kindly be approved".
The suggestion made by the State Level Committee was readily accepted by the Government and the necessary amendments to the Rules were made, as suggested and were notified by, the Government through G.O.Ms. No. 137.
22. It is nobody's case that the amended rules are retrospective in their nature. A plain reading of the amended rules also make it clear that they are not retrospective in nature and operation. In such view of the matter, can it be said that the sanction made by the 1st respondent-State Level Committee for the construction of the Rest Houses is in accordance with the Rules prior to their amendment ? The amendment has come into force, as notified by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 137 dated May 24, 1995. Whereas the sanction is accorded by the 1 st respondent-State Level Committee in all cases involving. about Rs. 111 lakhs prior to the amendment of the Rules. The loans were sanctioned right from October 7, 1992 onwards and the latest is on May 3, 1995. It is clear that the sanction for the construction of Rest Houses and Kalyana Mandapams by the 1st respondent-State Level Committee is ultra vires the A.P. Employees' Welfare Fund Rules, 1980 and contrary to Rules 6 and 7 and under the scheme of the said Rules and the sanction is not supported by the authority of law. In this view of the matter, there is no need to express any opinion about the validity of the amended rules.
23. It is faintly argued by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents that the deponent of the affidavit in both the writ petitions has no locus stands to file the writ petitions as he has already retired from service. I am not impressed by the submission, as he has not filed the writ petitions in his individual capacity but as a representative of the Action Committee of employees and workers of A.P. State. It is nobody's case that the said action committee does not consist of any employees in service. That apart, in both the writ petitions there is also another petitioner. In such view of the matter, there is no substance in the plea.
24. It is rather difficult to appreciate the rationale behind the impugned memo dated May 10, 1995 in which the Government directs deduction of an amount of Rs. 10/- from the salary of each employee from May, 1995 and payable in June, 1995. All the employees are made liable 5 to pay towards payment of loan obtained by 11 of the-employees Associations, out of 85 recognised service Associations. The rules do not permit such compulsory collection of the amount towards the loan granted to the Associations. Rules provide that the amount towards the loans granted as an assistance to be collected from the concerned employees who have availed the loan and assistance and not from the other employees. The liability incurred by an employee or a group of employees has to be discharged by them and the same cannot he fastened upon other employees. Such of those employees who have nothing to do with the transaction, cannot be compelled and put under an obligation to part with their hard earned money. There is nothing in the scheme to suggest that the assistance granted as loan to a member/employee can be collected and recovered from other employees. This action of the Government is absolutely illegal, void and without jurisdiction. Rules 6 and 7 do not give any such power or the authority to State Government. The whole exercise and process has no basis in law and is accordingly declared as ultra vires.
25. For all the above stated reasons, it is held that the sanctioning of the amount by the 1st respondent for the construction of Rest Houses itself is ultra vires the A.P. Employees' Welfare Fund Rules, 1980. The consequential direction issued by the Government-2nd respondent in the impugned memo No. 25523/13/PC.I/APEWF/94 dated May 10, 1995 is declared as illegal. It is further held that the amount already sanctioned by Respondent No. 1 is to be recovered only from the members of the Employees Associations to whom the amounts are sanctioned and not from other Employees. There is nothing in the scheme to suggest that the assistance granted as loan to a member/employee can be collected and recovered from the other employees.
26. The Writ Petition No. 10647/1995 is accordingly allowed and the Writ Petition No. 24556/1995 is disposed of. No costs.