Back
1981 Supreme(Del) 14
High Court Of Delhi
K.M.BINDRA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
L.P.A. 100 of 1973
Decided On : 01/15/1981
D.P.VADHAVA, M.A.KRISHNAMURTHY, M.S.MOHAN RAO
The Government has the power to change the service conditions of its employees by administrative instructions when such conditions were originally based on administrative instructions and when the said instructions did not contravene any statutory rule or law.
Headnote:
SERVICE CONDITIONS - CHANGE OF CONDITIONS - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES - POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO CHANGE SERVICE CONDITIONS - CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES - RATIONALITY - CONFIRMATION - PROBATIONARY PERIOD - LAST COME FIRST GO PRINCIPLE - EXCEPTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a temporary Clerk Grade III in the High Commission of India in London, challenged the validity of the notice terminating his services. He claimed that the Government could not unilaterally change his service conditions and that he was entitled to the right to opt for Estacode terms. The appellant also claimed that he had been confirmed in service and that the Government had violated the principle of "last come, first go" by retaining junior employees in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government had the power to change the service conditions of its employees by administrative instructions when such conditions were originally based on administrative instructions and when the said instructions did not contravene any statutory rule or law. The court also held that the Government's decision to give the option to choose Estacode terms of service only to employees who had put in seven years of service prior to April 1, 1963 was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The court further held that the appellant was not entitled to be confirmed in service in view of the policy decision of the Government and that there was justification for retaining the juniors to the appellant in service. The court also held that the order of termination was not illegal on the ground that the Government had violated the principle of "last come, first go".
Issues: 1. Whether the Government could unilaterally change the service conditions of its employees. 2. Whether the Government's decision to give the option to choose Estacode terms of service only to employees who had put in seven years of service prior to April 1, 1963 was arbitrary or discriminatory. 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to be confirmed in service. 4. Whether the Government had violated the principle of "last come, first go" by retaining junior employees in service.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government has the power to change the service conditions of its employees by administrative instructions when such conditions were originally based on administrative instructions and when the said instructions did not contravene any statutory rule or law. 2. The Government's decision to give the option to choose Estacode terms of service only to employees who had put in seven years of service prior to April 1, 1963 was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. 3. The appellant was not entitled to be confirmed in service in view of the policy decision of the Government. 4. The Government had not violated the principle of "last come, first go" by retaining junior employees in service.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS appeal, under Clause I Oof the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated February 26,1973.
( 2 ) ON the basis of an interview before the Selection Board, the appellant, Shri K. M. Bindra, was selected for appointment as temporary Clerk Grade III. This post was offered to him vide letter of the Secretary, Establishment Department, High Commission of India in London, dated March 26, 1958. Inpursuance of this offer, he joined the said-post on March 28, 1958. The appointment was liable to be terminated on one week s notice on either side. He was also to be on probation for a period of three months. The appellant was promoted to a higher post of temporary Clerk Grade II on March 2, 1959. Admittedly, he was never made permanent.
( 3 ) AT the time when the appellant joined service all the employees; of the High Commission, including the appellant, were governed by local civil service conditions called estacode terms. These terms were almost the same which were applicable to the civil service employees of the British Government. For some time past the Government of India was contem plating to alter the service conditions of the employees of the High Commission. This intention was expressed in the letter dated March 31, 1956 of the Deputy High Commissioner which was given the widest publicity among local members of the staff. Ultimately, on December 27, 1962 the President of India was pleased to promulgate a scheme for the formation of a local cadre in the High Commission of India in London. This scheme was to take effect from January 1, 1961. All the members of the staff of the Hign Commission who were in the service before August 15, 1947 were given the option of continuing on their then present scales of pay with such revisions as the Government of United Kingdom might give in future to the equivalent staff or of exercising their option for terms applicable to the new cadre. Separate orders were to issue as regards grant of option to the temporary employees recruited between August 15, 1947 and March 31, 1953. The right of option was extended to persons who had by 1963 put in at least 10 years service in the High Commission. In 1963it was further extended to those who had completed seven years service by 1963.
( 4 ) THE employees of the High Commission were not satisfied with this extension and demanded that the right to opt should be extended to all the employees who had joined service before December 27, 1962, mainly on the plea that they were not aware of the notice circulated on March 31, 1956. Whitley Council meetings were held to hear the grievances of the employees. In the meeting held on November 20, 1970 at India House, the staff side was informed that the Government was not prepared to extend the option to choose Estacode terms to the staff who had joined after April 1, 1956, as they should have been aware of the notice circulated on March 31, 1956 regarding impending changes in conditions of service.
( 5 ) THE services of the appellant were terminated vide letter dated September 25, 1972 by giving one month s notice.
( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the notice dated September 25, 1972 terminating his services. He prayed for quashing the said notice ; declaring that he was entitled to right of opting for Estacode terms and directing the respondent to allow him to exercise that right and further declaring that he had been confirmed in 1967 or in the alternative directing the respondents to consider his case for confirmation and declaring him permanent if found fit. In the alternative the appellant prayed for directions to the respondents to give him all the terminal benefits.
( 7 ) ALL these reliefs were claimed mainly on the allegations that the service conditions of the appellant could not be unilaterally and forcibly altered and he could not be put under rupee cadre without his consent. The act of th
