COMMANDING OFFICER Vs. R R PILLAI
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The first respondent was working as a Junior Warrant Officer in the Indian Air Force. He had joined on October 7, 1967. He had taken premature retirement in October, 1988. On November 28, 1988, the first respondent applied for the post of Manager in the Southern Air Command Unit Canteen. vide order dated January 9, 1989, he was appointed as Manager of the Canteen. This was done with retrospective effect from February 1, 1989. He was to be on probation for a period of six months, which could be extended to one year. The appointment was "subject to the terms and conditions of service issued vide Air Headquarter letter No. 20728 / P / Org.as may be amended from time to time". The first respondent was required to sign and accept the said terms and conditions of service. He had done so. A copy of this order is annexed as A - 3 on the file. Vide order dated May 31, 2000 the Commanding Officer of the Unit terminated the services of the first respondent as Canteen Manager. Aggrieved by the order, the first respondent filed a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. It was registered as O.P. No. 15980 of 2000. It was dismissed vide Judgment dated June 21, 2000 on the ground that "if the organization from which the petitioners services are terminated is, as contended by the petitioner, found to be a State or instrumentality of the State under Art.12 of the Constitution of India, he being admittedly a civilian, necessarily this Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition in terms of S.14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act as no other court except the Supreme Court will have jurisdiction to entertain a petition in relating to service matters of such employees".
(2.) Thereafter the first respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal through a petition under S.19. Vide order dated September 26, 2002 the Tribunal held that R.24(1) of the "terms and conditions is void and inoperative. .". It further held that the order of termination dated May 31, 2000 "is also bad in law since it is issued in contravention of the terms and conditions. . and also embedded with mala fides and not in conformity with the principles of natural justice". Resultantly, the Tribunal directed that the first respondent was entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Commanding Officer, Headquarter, Southern Air Command (U) and the other respondents in the petition before the Tribunal have filed the present petition under Art.226 of the Constitution.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.