Gokal Chand Mital, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who was appointed as Manager (Industries and Export) in the National Co-Operative Consumers Federation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "n. C. C. F. " ). joined on 22nd January, 1976. His services were terminated on 23. 2. 1985. The petitioner has challeged that the order terminating his services is wholly arbitrary and manifestly erroneous.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts which are necessary to dispose of this writ petition are recapitulated as under:-

( 3 ) THE petitioner who was appointed as Manager (Industries and Export) in the "n. C. C. F. ", joined on 22nd January, 1976, in the pay-scale of Rs. 1100-1600, which was subsequently raised to Rs. 1500-2000.

( 4 ) THE petitioner was promoted as Chief Manager from 19th March, 1983 in the pay- scale of Rs. 1925-2450 (since revised as Rs. 2070-2745) and has been continuing till date in the same pay-scale. The petitioner has all along been working in the Head Office.

( 5 ) THE petitioner s services were terminated by the impugned order dated 23. 2. 1985. He was given the letter of termination in sealed cover on 25th February, 1985 when he came to his office The envelope also contained cheque dated 23. 2. 1985 of the amounts towards his salary and allowances for three months, alongwith the order, in lieu of notice. The only reason given in the termination order was that the services of the petitioner are no longer requiredd by "n. C. C. F. "

( 6 ) THE petitioner submitted that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was at no stage informed of any allegations against him or even asked to explain anything before issuance of the impugned order. For that the impugned order is ultra vires the Service Rules of the respondent N. C. C. F. This court issued notice to the respondents on 3rd August, 185.

( 7 ) IN pursuance of the notice, reply affidavit on behalf of respondent no. I was filed. In the reply, thrashold objection has been taken by the respondents that respondent no. 1 is neither state" noran "authority" nor "instrumentality" of the State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India The writ petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable, and the same was liable to be dismissed on this short ground.

( 8 ) IT has been further submitted in the reply, that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent no. I is purely contractual. Both the parties entered into a contract whereby the petitioner agreed to serve and respondent no. I agreed to avail of his personal services. The relationship is governed by the terms of the contract which includes the various Staff Regulations framed from time to time. In the letter of appointment dated 9. 7. 1978, issued to the petitioner, it is clearly laid down that his appointment was subject to rules and regulations framed and amended from time to time by the Federation. It is further mentioned in the reply that services of an employee can be terminated by giving him three months notice or pay in lieu thereof. In the regulation, there is a clause which is known as "termination simpliciter". It is further mentioned that the case of the petitioner was considered by respondent no. 1 and his service were terminated under Staff regulation no. 16 (vi) and the petitioner was given three months salary in lieu thereof. The order of termination does not cast any stigma, doubt or aspersion on the past conduct of the petitioner. The termination order ex-facie shows that power under Staff regulation no. 16 (vi) has been invoked.

( 9 ) THE petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 1 and the petitioner reiterated the averments mentioned in the writ petition that his termination was illegal and unconstitutional and deserves to be quashed by this court.

( 10 ) BEFORE we deal with this matter whether termination of the petitioner was illegal and unconstitutional and against the rules and regulations of the respondent no 1, we

Click Here to Read the rest of this document