# Suresh Singh v. Director, North Central Zone & others

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39256
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-01-13
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-singh-v-director-north-central-zone-others-39256
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
82
entry not being correctly recorded in service
record. The concerned authority shall decide
the said representation within three months by
giving opportunity to the petitioner in
accordance with law and shall a reasoned
order which shall be communicated within
two weeks of its being passed by Registered
post acknowledgement due apart from any
other mode to the Petitioner.

It is made clear that none of the
observation made above shall effect the
discretion of the concerned authority in
deciding the issue before him. If it is found
that petitioner was entitled to be continued up
to the age of 60 years, the question of
payment of arrears of salary on the basis of
full wages shall be decided by concerned
authority
taking
into
account
relevant
circumstances (keeping in mind-employee in
the instant case has not refused to work) on
the basis of criterion pointed out in several
decisions of this Court as well as Apex Court,
whether employee was gainfully employed or
not etc., during relevant period in question.
See AIR 1991 SC 2010 (Union of India
versus K.V. Jankiramna):AIR 1999 SC 3265;
AIR 1979 SC 75; AIR 1980 SC 840 (para 18
and 19); 1998 (78) FLR 530(SC); AIR 1991
SC 1490 and 1998 (1) UPLBEC 304 (DB)
All. H.C.

Writ petition stands allowed subject to the
direction and observations made above.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -DQ
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -DQ
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/
7+( +21·%/( '%&+$8'+$5< -
( '%&+$8'+$5< -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6XUHVK 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LUHFWRU
1RUWK
&HQWUDO
=RQH
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $ .XPDU
6KUL 63 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6&
6UL 9LQHHW 6DUDQ
6UL 81
6KDUPD
6UL 3UDERGK *DXU
6KUL 7HM 3UDNDVK
6KUL 7DXMD 6RPYDQVKL

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

WHUPLQDWLRQ RUGHU EDVHG RQ DEROXWLRQ RI
SRVW &RQWUDFWXDO DSSRLQWPHQW SHWLWLRQHU
KDV
QR
ULJKW
WR
FRQWLQXH
HYHQ
LI
WKH
DSSRLQWPHQW
ZDV
SHUPDQHQW
EDVLV
DEROXWLRQ RU FUHDWLRQ RI SRVW LV D SROLF\
PDWWHU
SURWHFWLRQ
$UWLFOH

QRW
DYDLODEOH
+HOG ± 3DUD
6LQFH WKH GHFLVLRQ RI WKH &HQWUH RI DEROLVK
WKH SRVW DSSHDUV WR KDYH EHHQ SDVVHG RQ
DGPLQLVWUDWLYH DQG ILQDQFLDO JURXQGV WKLV
&RXUW FDQQRW LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH VDPH 7KHUH
LV D ILQDQFLDO FULVLV LQ WKH FRXQWU\ DQG WKH
FRXUW VKRXOG QRW LQWHUIHUH LQ WKH DXWKRULWLHV
HQGHDYRXU EH EULQJ GRZQ H[SHQVHV
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
$,5 6&
$,5 6& ±
$,5 6& ±

By the Court

1. This writ petition has been filed against
the
impugned
orders
dated
13.1.1998
Annexure 25 and 26 to the petition. By the
order dated 13.1.1998 Annexure 25 to the
petition the post of Deputy Director (Public
Relation) in the North Central Zone Cultural
Centre, Allahabad was abolished. By the
second order of the same date (Annexure 26
to the petition) the petitioner was given
contractual appointment for two years from
1.12.1993 terminable at any point of time
without any prior notice. It was also provided
therein that on the expiry of the contract
period it will be in the sole discretion of the
Executive Board of the North Central Zone
Cultural Centre, Allahabad to determine
1ALL] Suresh Singh V. Director, North Central Zone & others

83
 whether the contract should be renewed or
not.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The North Central Zone Cultural
Centre, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as
'the Centre') was set up a view to promote
and preserve the cultural heritage of India. It
is registered as a Society under the Societies
Registrar Act. Its governing body consists of
several persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of
the petition. The finance of the centre is
provided by the Central Government and
participating State Government. The Director
is an I.A.S. officer.

3. It is alleged that the petitioner was a
confirmed/regular
employee
working
as
Administrative Officer in the U.P. Panchayat
Raj Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as the Nigam) a Government of
U.P. undertaking and he was sent on
deputation by the Nigam to the Centre. True
copy of the letter appointing him on
deputation is Annexure 2 to the writ petition.
The petition. The petitioner took charge on
2.12.1991 vide Annexure 3. It is alleged in
paragraph 17 of the writ petition that while
working in the Centre the petitioner retained
his lien in the Nigam. In paragraph 18 it is
alleged that the petitioner was appointed as
Deputy Director (Public Relations) by the
order dated 19.1.1993 in the Centre vide
Annexure 4. He was given pay scale of Rs.
3000-4500. It is alleged in paragraph 21 that
on the assurance given by the respondent no.1
that he would be absorbed in the Centre he
resigned from the Nigam. True copy of the
petitioner's application dated 13.7.1993 is
Annexure 5 to the petition. True copy of the
resignation letter is Annexure 6 to the writ
petition. The resignation was accepted by the
Nigam w.e.f. 1.12.1993 vide Annexure 8. In
paragraph 28 it is alleged that the Executive
Board of the Centre by the resolution dated
4.3.1994 resolved that the post of Deputy
Director (Public Relations and Publications)
be re-designed as Deputy Director (public
Relations) and the petitioner be appointed on
the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 for three years
from 1.12.1992. It was resolved by the
Executive Board that the petitioner be treated
as an officer on contract employment. By the
order dated 3.6.1996 the petitioner was
allowed to continue to work in continuation of
his previous service till such time as the next
meeting of the Executive Board/Governing
body. The petitioner made a representation for
absorption. True copy of the representation
dated 24.1.1997 is Annexure 10 to the
petition. By the order dated 26.4.1997 vide
Annexure 11 to the petitioner's contractual
appointment was extended till 30.4.1997. it
was mentioned therein that if the petitioner
failed to extend his contract till 30.4.1997
the letter dated 24.1.1997 will be considered
as notice of termination of employment as per
contract.
The
petitioner
submitted
a
representation 29.4.1997 against this order
vide Annexure 12. In reply the office memo
dated 3.5.1997 was sent to him vide Annexure
13. The petitioner signed the counteract
referred to in the office memo as stated in
paragraph 50 of the writ petition. He then
moved an application dated 10.10.1997 for
reconsidering of the decision vide Annexure
14. In paragraph 54 of the petition it is alleged
that the petitioner was not paid salary for the
months of November and December 1997.
The petitioner filed a writ petition no. 43718
of 1997 before this court which was disposed
of by the order dated 13.1.1998 vide
Annexure 24 to the writ petition in which the
respondents were directed to pass appropriate
orders on the representation of the petitioner.
It is alleged in paragraph 73 that consequent
to this order the Director get annoyed and
abolished the contract vide Annexure 25.
Hence this petition.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by
the respondents. It is stated in paragraph 32 of
the counter affidavit that the post on which
the petitioner was working has been abolished
and no direction could be given in favour of
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
84
the petitioner. This was a policy decision in
the interest of the Society. In paragraph 29 of
the counter affidavit it has been stated that the
Executive Board of the Society decided on
15.12.1997 that the Centre does not need the
post of Deputy Director (Public Relations)
and there is no need to renew the contract of
the petitioner. Hence the contract was not
renewed and his service was terminated. In
paragraph 37 of the counter affidavit it is
denied that the Society is an instrumentality
and agency of the Central Government.

5. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit
it is stated that the petitioner had fraudulently
tendered his resignation from his parent
department, namely, U.P. Panchayat Raj Vitta
Evam Vikas Nigam Limited, Lucknow. In
paragraph
18
it
is
stated
that
the
administrative expenditure of the Society
exceeded 20% of the total outlay of the
Society and hence the Governing Body of the
Society in its meeting on 15.12.1997 decided
that efforts should be made by the Society to
bring its administrative expenditure to 20%
of its total budget. Hence it was decided that
the service of those on contractual basis may
not be renewed after expiry of the contract. It
was also decided to abolish the post of Deputy
Director (Public Relations). In paragraph 20
of the counter affidavit it is stated that there
was connivance between the petitioner and
the Officiating Director Sri Prayag Ram
Mishra. It is alleged that the petitioner and Sri
Mishra were in the knowledge of the decision
of the Executive Board Governing Body and
hence the petitioner and Sri Mishra cannot
claim ignorance about such resolution. True
copy of the resolution dated 9.10.1992 is
Annexure C.A. 4 to the counter affidavit. It is
alleged in paragraph 20 to the counter
affidavit that it was amazing that just after the
minutes of the said meeting of the Executive
Board held in Lucknow on 25.6.1993 the
officiating Director Sri Mishra moved a note
dated 13.7.1993 for regulation of the service
of the petitioner. Moreover, the Executive
Board of the Society did not recognize the
authority of the officiating Director for the
purposes of service matters and he had no
jurisdiction to regularize the service of the
petitioner. There was indecent haste in the
matter and the decision of Sri Mishra to
regularize the service of the petitioner was
illegal and for extraneous consideration. The
Executive Board did not want to add any
more to the staff of the Society since the
Society was spending more than 20 % of its
income on payment of pay and allowances. In
paragraph 66 of the counter affidavit it is
stated that there was no promise or assurance
given by any competent authority of the
Society for absorption regulation of the
petitioner in the service of the Society. The
petitioner resigned from his parent department
voluntarily on his own and no competent
authority of the Society asked him to do so.
The petitioner and the then Joint Director Sri
R.P. Mishra connived in sending a fraudulent
letter to the parent department of the
petitioner. In paragraph 74 of the counter
affidavit it is alleged that the Society never
gave any assurance as alleged in the
application of the petitioner dated 13.7.1993.

The detailed facts have given in the
counter affidavit and in the other affidavits
but it is necessary to go into the same.

6. The question whether to abolish a post
is a policy matter and it is for the
Management of the Society to decide this and
this Court cannot interfere in the decision of
abolition of a post. Moreover the allegation of
the petitioner that he was given assurance for
absorption in the Society has been strongly
refuted in the counter affidavit. These are
disputed questions of fact and we cannot go
into it in writ jurisdiction.

7. It is obvious that the Centre wanted to
reduce its administrative expenses and this
approach cannot be faulted by the Court.
Obviously there has been overstaffing in the
Centre and there is nothing wrong in
remedying this situation.
1ALL] Suresh Singh V. Director, North Central Zone & others

85

8. In Rajendra vs. State of Rajasthan and
others AIR 1999 SC 923 the Supreme Court
held that where a decision to abolish the post
is taken which is bona fide based on
administrative and financial consideration, the
employer cannot be directed to continue a
disped person in service. The Supreme Court
considered several of its own earlier decisions
and held that the Court cannot interfere in
such matters.
9. In the present case it cannot be said that
the decision of the respondent to abolish the
post was mala fide. Rather, the factual
position appears to be that the matter of
appointment of the petitioner as Deputy
Director was placed on 25.6.1993 before the
Executive Board and the Board decided that
the matter should await decision till the
permanent/ regular Director of the Centre was
appointed. No doubt Sri J.P. Rai, I.A.S. was
appointed as regular Director of the Centre by
the letter dated 7.7.1993 but that letter states
that the appointment will take effect from the
date of his joining, and Sri Rai joined as
regular Director of the Centre on 21.7.1993. It
appears that in between i.e. before the joining
of Sri Rai on 21.7.1993 the petitioner gave an
application on 13.7.1993 to the Director Sri
P.R. Misra that if he is absorbed in the service
of the centre he shall resign from his parent
department. On the same date the petitioner
submitted
his
resignation
letter
dated
13.7.1993 to be forwarded to his parent
department and on the same date i.e. on
13.7.1993 Sri P.R. Misra wrote to the parent
department of the petitioner (Panchayat Raj
Nigam) forwarding the resignation letter of
the petitioner. All these acts were done in a
hurry and in one single day although the
officiating Director had no authority or power
to give approval or assurance for absorption to
the petitioner or to forward his resignation
letter to the parent department. In our opinion,
Sri R.P. Misra should have awaited for the
regular Director Sri Rai to join but he acted in
great haste and against the resolution of the
Executive Board dated 25.6.1993 wherein it
was stated that the matter should await the
appointment of the permanent Director. On
4.3.1994 the Executive Board of the Centre in
its meeting at Jaisalmer passed a resolution
that if the petitioner wants to continue in the
Centre his employment from 1.12.1993 shall
be purely on contractual basis on the
condition that the petitioner should execute a
deed of contract. The first contract of service
was executed on 21.4.1994 whereby the
petitioner was appointed on purely contract
basis for a period of two years from 1.12.1993
and terminable at any time without notice and
after the expiry of the contract period it was
the sole discretion of the Executive Board to
renew the contract or not. On the request of
the Director of the Centre the U.P. Governor
gave permission for extension of the contract
for a period of six months i.e. up to 31.5.1996
and hence a second contract of employment
was executed on the same terms as in the first
contract vide Annexure C.A. 12 to the counter
affidavit. Since no meeting of the Executive
Board was held hence with the approval of the
Governor of U.P. (who is Chairman of the
Centre) the contract between the petitioner
and the Centre was extended till 31.5.1996 on
the same terms as the precious two contracts.
Another contract was signed on 26.4.1997
extending the period to 30.4.1997 vide
Annexure C.A. 13 to the counter affidavit and
again another contract was signed on 3.5.1997
extending the petitioner's contract till the next
meeting of the Executive Board or specific
order issued in this regard which ever was
earlier vide Annexure C.A.14 to the counter
affidavit.
Ultimately
on 15.12.1997 the
Governing Body of the Centre resolved to
abolish the post of Deputy Director (Public
Relation) besides down grading various other
posts. This decision was apparently taken with
a view to bring the administrative expenditure
of the Society to 20 % of its total budget.
Consequent to the aforesaid resolution the
Executive Board passed another resolution
stating that the Centre does not require the
post of Deputy Director (Public Relations). In
pursuance of the aforesaid two resolutions the
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
86
Director of the Centre issued two orders dated
13.1.1998 abolishing the post and terminating
the contractual appointment of the petitioner.

10. In N.C. Singh vs. Union of India, AIR
1980 SC 1255 the Supreme Court observed
(vide paragraph 18): "Creation and abolition
of posts is a matter of government policy, and
every Sovereign Government has this power
in the interest and necessity of internal
administration. The Creation or abolition of a
post is dictated by policy decision, exigencies
of circumstances and administrative necessity
(see M. Ramanatha Pillai vs. The State of
Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 2641)".

11. In K. Rajendran vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, AIR 1982 SC 1107 it was held that
abolition
of
a
post
did
not
involve
punishment, and hence Article 311(2) was not
attracted. In Mathuresh Chand vs. U.P. Public
Service Tribunal, 1999(81) FLR 322 a
division bench of this Court held that
abolition of a post is a valid ground for
termination of service of even a permanent
employee.

12. Since the decision of the post appears
to have been passed on administrative and
financial grounds this Court cannot interfere
with the same. There is a financial crisis in the
country and the court should not interfere in
the authorities endeavour to bring down their
expenses. Hence this is not a fit case for
interference
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution.

13. We are not going into question
whether the Centre is an instrumentally of the
State under Article 12 of the Constitution or
not as we are dismissing the petition on the
ground mentioned above.

However,
we
recommend
to
the
petitioner's parent department (the Nigam) to
re-employ the petitioner considering the fact
that his post in the centre has been abolished.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 5$9, 6'+$9$1 -
7+( +21·%/( 5$9, 6'+$9$1 -
7+( +21·%/( $ &+$.5$%$57,-
7+( +21·%/( $ &+$.5$%$57,-

6SHFLDO $SSHDO 1R RI

6XUHVK &KDQGUD 0LVKUD
«$SSHOODQW
9HUVXV
7KH 'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU RI 6FKRROV -KDQVL
DQG RWKHUV
5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQW
6KUL .5 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6&
6KUL 51 5DL

,QWHUPHGLDWH
(GXFDWLRQ
$FW

DSSRLQWPHQW VXEVWDQWLYH YDFDQF\ RI OHFWXUHU
FDXVHG
GXH
WR
UHWLUHPHQW
RI
SHUPDQHQW
HQFXPEDQW VKRUW WHUP YDFDQF\ZKHWKHU WKH
DSSRLQWPHQW
VKRXOG
EH
PDGH
WKURXJK
SURPRWLRQ IURP WKH VHQLRU PRVW HOLJLEOH /7
JUDGH WHDFKHU RU E\ GLUHFW UHFUXLWPHQW "
+HOG WKH PDQDJHPHQW WR ILQG RXW ILUVW DERXW
WKH
HOLJLEOH
FDQGLGDWH
IURP
HQWHUQDO
FDQGLGDWHV LI QR RQH HOLJLEOH 7HDFKHU LV
DYDLODEOH RQO\ DIWHU UHFRUGLQJ WKLV ILQGLQJ
WKH GLUHFW DSSRLQWPHQW FDQ EH PDGH WLOO WKH
UHJXODU FDQGLGDWH MRLQ WKH SRVW LQ TXHVWLRQ
+HOG SDUD
,Q WKH SUHVHQW FDVH LW ZRXOG EH DSSURSULDWH
WKDW WKH UHFRUG EH UHPLWWHG WR WKH &RPPLWWHH
RI 0DQDJHPHQW IRU LWV GHFLVLRQ WR FRPH WR D
FRQFOXVLRQ
ZKHWKHU
DQ HOLJLEOH FDQGLGDWH
ZLWKLQ WKH ,QVWLWXWLRQ ZDV DYDLODEOH RU QRW
DYDLODEOH
DW
WKH
UHOHYDQW
WLPH
,I
WKH
&RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW FRPHV WR WKH
FRQFOXVLRQ
WKDW
WKHUH
ZHUH
QR
HOLJLEOH
FDQGLGDWHV DYDLODEOH IRU SURPRWLRQ ZLWKLQ
WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ WKHQ WKH DSSRLQWPHQW VR
PDGH VKDOO EH UHWDLQHG
&DVH /DZ GLVFXVVHG
 83/%(&

By the Court

1. This special appeal has been filed
against the order dated 18 September 1995, in