Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. P. SAXENA, B. L. YADAV
J.C.REDDY - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 17338 Of 1984
Decided On : 04/26/1985
WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - PRIVATE BODY - BREACH OF STATUTORY OBLIGATION - ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION - MINORITY INSTITUTION - RE-EMPLOYMENT - TENURE OF SERVICE - RECOGNITION AS MINORITY INSTITUTION - SALARY - PENSION - GRATUITY - GOVERNMENT ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher at the Allahabad Agricultural Institute, challenged the decision of the Board of Directors holding that he ceased to be a member of the Board after his superannuation. He also sought quashing of the Government Order recognizing the Institute as a minority institution, payment of salary for October 1984, accumulated leave, and consideration of pension and pensionary benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable against the private registered society, the Board of Directors, in the absence of any breach of any legal obligation or duty imposed by a statute. The Court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to continue as a member of the Board of Directors after his superannuation, as he started a fresh tenure of service upon re-employment and could not retain his old seniority or lien. The Court further held that the Government Order recognizing the Institute as a minority institution was valid and could not be challenged by the petitioner, who had relied on the Articles of Association in supersession of the statutes on the ground that the Institute was a minority institution. The Court directed the opposite party to ensure that the petitioner was paid the salary due to him for the period from October 1, 1984, to October 25, 1984, and noted that the opposite party had never refused to provide pension and pensionary benefits.
Issues: 1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a private body for breach of Articles of Association? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to continue as a member of the Board of Directors after his superannuation? 3. Whether the Government Order recognizing the Institute as a minority institution was valid? 4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to salary, pension, and gratuity?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ petition lies against a private body for enforcement or performance of any legal obligation or duty imposed by a statute, but not where there is neither a statutory nor public duty imposed on it by a statute, nor is there any corresponding legal right for enforcement of such statutory or public duty. 2. A person re-employed after superannuation starts a fresh tenure of service and does not retain his old seniority or lien. Therefore, the petitioner could not continue to be a member of the Board of Directors after his superannuation. 3. The Agricultural Institute was admittedly an educational institution run by Christians, a minority community, and was rightly recognized as a minority institution. The petitioner could not challenge this recognition, having relied on the Articles of Association in supersession of the statutes on the ground that the Institute was a minority institution. 4. The Court directed the opposite party to ensure that the petitioner was paid the salary due to him for the period from October 1, 1984, to October 25, 1984, and noted that the opposite party had never refused to provide pension and pensionary benefits.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable and found no merit in it. There was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for: (i) A writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the Board of Directors, Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad taken in a meeting held on 25-27 Oct. 1984 holding that the petitioner has ceased to be a member of the Board of Directors after the date of his superannuation. (ii) a writ of certiorari quashing the Government Order recognising the Agricultural Institute as a minority institution; (iii) a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to pay the salary of the petitioner for the month of Oct. 1984 as well as accumulated leave for two months and seven days; (iv) a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to consider the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner just after his retirement.
( 2 ) THE petitioner was employed as a Lecturer in the Agricultural Institute, Allahabad. The Agricultural Institute, Allahabad is an Associated College of the Allahabad University. It is administered by a Registered Society called the Board of Directors of the Allahabad Agricultural Institute. According to the service conditions the petitioner was to retire on attaining the age of 60 years.
( 3 ) ON 9th Aug. 1984 the Director and the Executive Secretary of the Board of Directors sent letter (Annexure-A) to the petitioner informing him that his date of superannuation fell on 13th Sept. 1984 and that he would be relieved on that date.
( 4 ) ALLAHABAD University (Tenth Amendment) Statute 1980 was published vide Notification No. 4353, dated Oct. 1, 1980. It provided for re-employment of the teacher whose date of superannuation fell between Oct. 1 and June 29 (both days inclusive) for the period up to 30th June.
( 5 ) THE Allahabad University (14th Amendment) Statutes, 1981 was published vide Notification No. 4826, dated 15th Sept. 1981 (Annexure-G ). The words "falls between Oct. 1 and June 29 (both days inclusive)" were substituted by the words "does not fall on June 30. "
( 6 ) ON 22nd Aug. 1984 the Director and the Executive Secretary of the Board of Directors sent letter (Annexure-C informing the petitioner that he would be treated as re-employed with effect from 14th Sept. 1984 till 30th June 1985. He was further informed that he would not get any increment or new scale of pay, if any, after the date of superannuation which fell on 13th Sept. 1984.
( 7 ) ON 20th Oct. 1984 the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors resolved that the petitioner would be treated as absent without leave and administrative action would be taken against him as he proceeded on leave without his application for leave being recommended by the Head of the Department and approved by the Principal.
( 8 ) IN the 19th Annual Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 25-27th Oct. 1984 resolution No. 84-153 was passed (Annexure-B ). It was decided that as the petitioner completed the age of 60 years on 13th Sept. 1984 and he was re-employed with effect from Sept. 14,1984, he was not entitled to continue to be a member of the Board of Directors. It was decided that Sri R. V. Rao and Sri B. A. David be invited to attend the meeting of the Board of Directors as staff representatives.
( 9 ) ON 29th Oct. 1984 the petitioner sent letter (Annexure H) along with medical certificate (Annexure-I) for leave salary for the period from 7th Oct. 1984 to 22nd Oct. 1984. On 5th Nov. 1984 the Director and Executive Secretary of the Board of Directors sent reply (Annexure-I) pointing out that he went on leave without prior approval. He was, therefore, treated on leave without pay with effect from 1st Oct. 1984 to 25th Oct. 1984.
( 10 ) THE petitioners case is that he was appointed member of the Board of Directors for a period of three years and the impugned resolution No. 84-153, dated 25th-27th Oct. 1984. is in violation of the Articles of Association. The validity of the meeting of Board of Directors has been assailed. It was said that as the petiti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
