THE VALIANT STRUGGLE OF MCAA IN 1968
AFTER THE FAMOUS 1967 STRIKE
FOR DEARNESS ALLOWANCE.
Strike of the Central Government employees and the Railwaymen took place on 19th September, 1968
against the Government’s refusal to accept their genuine demands or to refer the same to board of Arbitration as provided for in the JCM Scheme.
In this strike
48,000 Central Government employees were served with notices of termination of service,
4,000 Railway employees were summarily discharged,
7,000 placed under suspension and
8,000 faced trial in different courts of law.
9 persons died in police firing in Pathankot, Bikaner and elsewhere.
Leaders of the Central Government employees, went on an indefinite fast in front of the Parliament in New Delhi against this massive victimization. The Government of India was forced to withdraw the discharge notices and consequently all the discharged employees were reinstated in service.
Gajendera Gadkar Report on DA
was finally implemented from 01.10.1968 .
AFTER STRIKE LEGAL BATTLE
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL , MADRAS
VS
THE MADRAS NON GAZETTED CIVIL ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION
LAWS (MAD)-1969-8-15
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
WRIT APPEAL NO.142/ 1969
DECIDED ON 13-06-1969
Judge : K. Veeraswami, C.J. and ; E.P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.
Reported in : (1970) ILLJ 303 Mad
THE MADRAS NON GAZATTED CIVIL ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION APPELANT
( BY ITS SECRETARY V.NAGARAJAN)
VS
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, MADRAS & OTHERS RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT :
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of Kailasam, J., by which he dismissed the appellant's petition under Arc. 223 of the Constitution to quash an order or the
Accountant-General. Madras, dated 27 September 1968. By that order the appellant
was told that, in view of the strike by certain Government servants in the Department
of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, he had come to the conclusion that
the de facto recognition of the appellant-association should be withdrawn with
immediate effect. The order also stated that the facilities given to the association and
its office-bearers should stand automatically withdrawn and that the secretary of the
association should make over immediately to the care-taker of the Accountant General's
office vacant possession of the room in the office premises which had been
in the occupation of the association. Kailasam, J., was of the view that the recognition
of the association being no longer rested on any statutory rules, its withdrawal could
not be interfered with. He was also of the view that since Rule 4B of the Cants-ail
Civil Service's (Conduct) Rules, 1955, was held to be violative of Article 19(1)(c) of
the Constitution is Ghosh (O.K.) and another Vs Joseph (E.X) and vice versa 1962 I .L.J.
615 It automatically followed that the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Services
Associations) Rules, 1959, should be regarded as invalid. Oil the contention that the
withdrawal of recognition was without notice to the appellant, the learned Judge
considered that It could not be stated that, as a rule of law, even in cases where the
appellant had no right in law, notice should be given.
2. We are unable to share the view of Kailasam J., is so far as it related to the validity
of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of service Associations) Rules, 1959. In our
view those ruled are not invalidated by reason of Ghosh (O. K.) and Another . vs. Joseph (E.
X ) and vice versa 1982 I.L.J. 615 (vide supra) and the assumption of the
respondent, to the contrary, is not well-founded. That case rules only held that the exercise
of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) could not validly be
conditioned on recognition, subject to certain conditions of an association. Rule 4B of
the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, prohibited a Government servant
from attending or continuing to be a member of any service association of
Government servants which had not, within a specified period, obtained the
recognition of the Government under the rules prescribed in that behalf, or, the
recognition in respect of such association had been refused of withdrawn by the
Governments under those rules, The Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service
Associations) Rules, 1959, were framed by the President, after consultation with the
Comptroller and Auditor-General, in exercise of the powers under Articles 148(5) and
149 of the Constitution read with Rule 4B of the Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1955. Rule 7 relates to withdrawal of recognition, and, It says that recognition
can be withdrawn in respect of a services association if it had failed to comply with
the conditions set out in Rules 4, 5 and 6. The respondents do not say, we may notice
in passing, that the withdrawal, in this case, is covered by Rule 7, for it was not on
the ground that the appellant had failed to comply with the conditions set out in Rules
4 to 6. If the Recognition Rules of 1959 are still in force, there can be no doubt,
therefore, that the withdrawal of recognition of the appellant-association cannot be
supported. But the respondents assume they ware invalid and, because of that, the
Accountant -General, by his communication, dated 1 April 1967, stated that the
recognition of the appellant should be regarded as purely on de-facto basis and that it
was subject to the conditions ambled in the recognition Rules, 1959.
3. Ghosh (O.K.) and Another. vs. Joseph (E.X) and vice versa 1962 I.L.J. 615 (vice supra)
entirely left untouched the validity of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of
Services Associations) Rules, 1959. Since Rule 4B of the Conduct Rules violated the
Government servants fundamental right under Art.. 19(1)(c), the Supreme Court
considered that it was not easy to see any rational, direct or proximate connection
between the observance of the conditions for continued recognition of the association
and public order and that, it was possible, therefore, that recognition might be
refused or withdrawn on grounds which were wholly unconnected with public order.
On that view, It was held that the right to form associations guaranteed by Article
19(1)(c) was made subject to the rigorous restriction that the association In question
must secure and continue to enjoy recognition from Government and that the
restriction thus imposed would make the guarantee ineffective or even illusory. It
may be seen at once that the Court, in that case, was looking at, the matter from the
standpoint of the fundamental right of the Government servant to form associations.
That right could not be made dependent on whether recognition was given to an
association by the Government, or, if it was given, it continued to operate or it was
withdrawn. But that has nothing to do with the validity of the Central Civil Services
(Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1959. No association has a fundamental
right to recognition by the Government. Indeed, that was not the question that came
up for consideration or decision in Ghosh (O.K.) and Anr. v. Joseph (E. X.) and vice
versa 1982 I.L.J. 6.5 (vide supra). It is one thing to say that a Government servant's
right under Article 19(1)(c) cannot be media to depend on whether an association was
a recognized one or not, and, it is quite another that if and when an association is
formed, it is entitled to recognition or not. The last aspect is not governed by Article
19(1) at all. The Recognition Rules were, therefore, not affected by Ghosh (O.K) and another. vs Joseph (E. X.) and vice versa 1962 I.L.J. 615 (vida supra). Their validity is also
not affected by the fact that Rule 4B of the Con-duct Rules has been struck down. In
fact, the power to make the Recognition Rules was not derived from Rule 4B though
it was cited in the preamble to the notification of the Recognition Rules. Merely
because a wrong rule was cited, as the source of power, it does not follow that it
would, by itself, invalidate the rules if they can be justified with reference to the
power under the proper source.
4. It follows that the view of the department that the appellant had only de-facto
recognition cannot be maintained. The recognition accorded to it under the
Recognition Rules continued to operate, and since it is not the case that the
withdrawal of the recognition was under Rule 7 of the Recognition Rules, the order of
the Accountant-General dated 27 September 1968 cannot be sustained as valid.
5. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.
There will be no order
as to costs here and in the writ petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment