Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a permanent civilian worker in the Defence Department whose services were terminated under Article 310 of the Constitution without any reason. The respondent claimed that the termination was illegal and sought damages. The Trial Court awarded him Rs. 25,000 in damages, which was confirmed by the High Court. The appellants contended that Article 311(2) was not applicable to the respondent, while the respondent argued that the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 were applicable. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) as he drew his salary from Defence Estimates, thus excluding him from its protection. The court further reasoned that the 1965 Rules could not provide relief since Article 311(2) was excluded. However, the court acknowledged the respondent's poverty and the long litigation process, deciding to uphold the decree on compassionate grounds while allowing the appeal on legal grounds. The appellants were directed to pay costs to the respondent.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Applicability of Article 311(2) - Exclusion of Protection - Article 311(2) does not apply to civilian employees in Defence Services drawing salary from Defence Estimates - The respondent was not entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) as he was a civilian worker in the Defence Department. The court held that the exclusionary effect of Article 311(2) deprived him of the protection he might otherwise have had (Paras 1079D-E). B) Administrative Law - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Inapplicability due to Article 310 - The 1965 Rules cannot independently apply when Article 311(2) is excluded, as the rule-making power under Article 309 is subject to Article 311. The court concluded that the 1965 Rules could not provide relief to the respondent (Paras 1079F-G). C) Equitable Relief - Denial of Relief - The court recognized that equitable relief should not be denied in deserving cases. Despite the legal grounds favoring the appellants, the court upheld the decree in favor of the respondent on compassionate grounds due to his poverty and prolonged litigation (Paras 1080F).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the provisions of Articles 309-311 of the Constitution of India and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 were applicable to the respondent's termination.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on legal grounds but upheld the decree in favor of the respondent on compassionate grounds, directing the appellants to pay costs.
Law Points
- Article 310
- Article 311
- Central Civil Services (Classification
- Control and Appeal) Rules
- 1965
- doctrine of pleasure
- equitable relief
