S.R.Singh - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed Manager (Cotton) on starting pay of Rs. 1700/ per month in pay scale of Rs. 1600-50-1850 E. B. 75-2000/ in the U. P Cooperative Spinning Mill Federation Ltd., Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Federation) on terms and conditions embodied in appointment letter dated 13-10-1982 (Aunexure-1 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of T. Blah, I.A.S. Managing Director of the Federation. THE appointment was permanent in nature and the petitioner was placed on probation for one year from the date of joining the post. He joined the post but subsequently tendered his resignation from service vide letter dated 30-7-1983, which was accepted by the Managing Director of the Federation vide letter dated 3-8-1983 to be effective from the date of petitioner's relieve from the post. It: was stipulated in the letter dated 3-8-1983 that the petitioner would be relieved of his duty as soon as suitable arrangement was made in his place by the Federation. But before any arrangement could be made, the petitioner sought to withdraw his resignation vide letter dated 6-8-1983 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). It appears that the Federation accepted the petitioner's resignation from service as an accomplished fact and advertised the post held by him vide advertisement as published in Hindustan Times on 21-8-1983 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). THE petition in hand was filed on 21-10-1983 praying therein that this Court may issue a writ or mandamus directing the opposite party not to make any selection or appointment of any other person on the post held by the petitioner. It is alleged in the writ petition that the resignation tendered by the petitioner was not free and voluntary instead it was given under coercion and pressure from the Managing Director of the Federation and it is further alleged that the resignation having been withdrawn before its acceptance became effective, there was no question of treating the post held by the petitioner as vacant and to fill the same pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).
(2.) THE petition was allowed exparte vide order dated 28-8-1991, but on an application moved on behalf of the respondent through Sri S. N. Upadyaya, who was subsequently engaged in place of original counsel Sri G. N Verma, the exparte order dated 28-8-1991 was recalled and the parties counsel were heard at length. Learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the Federation is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and further that the services of the petitioner were not regulated by any Statutory Rules and therefore, the Federation is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. So as the contention of Sri S. N. Updahyaya that at the relevant time there were no Statutory Rules governing the services of the petitioner, is concerned, I find that clause (9) off the appointment order stipulates that the petitioner's services would be governed by rules/orders of the Federation/Cooperative Spinning Mills as applicable to its employees from time to time. It appears that the Federation has not yet framed regulations governing the service conditions of its employees. It is not disputed before me that by means of Notification No. 366 C/XII C-3-36-71 published in UP. Gazette Extra Ordinary dated 4-3-1972 issued under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 read with rule 389 A of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968, the Governor was pleased to constitute an authority known as the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board for the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of certain apex level societies including Cooperative Textile Mills, but by means of a subsequent Notification No. 2752/XII C-2/72-78, dated Lucknow October 16, 1981 issued under the same provision of law; the aforesaid Notification dated 4-3-1972 was amended by omitting the words "Cooperative Taxtile Mills". Consequently the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employee's Service Regulation, 1975 framed by the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board were not applicable to the petitioner, though the aforesaid regulations have since been adopted by the Federation vide resolution No. 6 passed by the Committee of Management of the Federation in its meeting held on 14-3-1991 and the earlier Resolution No. 10 dated 4-3-1983 passed in connection with adoption of UP. S.T C. Service Rules etc. has been cancelled. However, from Annexure. 2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 10-10-1991 filed on behalf of the Federation by Sri B. P. Sinha, Manager Personnel (Industrial Relation) it is evident that the Committee of Management of the Federation in its meeting held on 4-3-1983 ; "resolved that till the Federation is able to frame its own Service Rules, T. A , Medical, other allowances and Advances Rules for the staff of the Federation and the Rules prevailing in this direction in the U P. State Textile Corporation Limited may be adopted as they are". The result is that at the relevant time i.e. in July-August. 1983, services of the petitioner were governed by such Service Rules/Order of the Federation/Cooperative Spinning Mills as were applicable to its employees from time to time in terms of paragraph 9 of the appointment order dated 13-10-1982 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and the Service Rules prevailing in the Uttar Pradesh State Textile Corporation Limited, in terms of the decision taken by the committee of Management of the Federation in its meeting held on 4-3-1983 (Annexure. 2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by Sri B. P. Sinha on behalf of the Federation as aforesaid.
(3.) "Federation" as defined in the Bye laws means the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. It exercises all functions and powers of Apex Society vide by law no. 62 "Cooperative Spinning Mills" as defined in clause (2) (i) of the Bye law of the Federation means machanised Spinning Mills under the Cooperative Sector in U. P. The term so defined is vide enough to include U. P. S.T.C. Ltd. and the expression used in para 5 of the appointment order, to my mind, too has the same meaning. Sri Jagdish Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to by law no 6 of the U. P. State Cooperative (General Service Condition) Bye laws, 1978, which according to him was applicable in view of the resolution dated 4-3-1983. The rule may be quoted as below : "6. Option of Permanent Employee to quit service : (1) Every permanent employee shall have the option to quit the service by giving to the appointing authority these months' notice or praying to the Corporation an amount equal to his pay for three months, or such lesser period by which the notice falls short of three months ; Provided that the appointing authority may, in any special case, waive the required period of notice or realisation of the amount in lieu of notice, in whole or in part; (2) Such quittal shall have the effect of disentitling the employee of all such terminal benefits as are admissible to employees retiring superanuating in normal course under the applicable rule's ; Provided that nothing in this bye law shall deprive the employee from receiving back the amounts deposited by him with the Corporation from time to time together with interest, if any, allowable on such deposits in normal course. (3) As an exception to sub bye law (1), it shall be open to the appointing authority to disallow the exercise of option if any disciplinary proceedings are pending or are contemplated against the employee " Similar is the provision contained in regulation 30 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employee's Service Regulations, 1975, which deals with the resignation of an employee of a cooperative society. The Service Regulations of 1975 were at the relevant time not applicable to the petitioner as already stated herein before, but the Bye-laws framed by the U. P. Textile Corporation Ltd., were to my mind, applicable to the petitioner in view of the decision taken by the Committee of Management of the Federation in its meeting held on 4-3-1983 adopting the service rules prevailing in U. P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Though the resolution gives an impression that the Rules prevailing in U. P. State Textile Corporation Ltd., were adopted by the Federation) in limited filed but when the resolution is read in the light of the relevant agenda it becomes clear, that the general service conditions as contained in the U. P. Textile Corporation (General Service Conditions) Bye law. 1978 governed the service conditions of the employees of the Federation. These Bye laws laying down the general service conditions of the employees have statutory force and it would not be correct to say that there were no service rules governing the services of the petitioner at the relevant time. Any other view may be destructive of the concept of rule of law envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution. The resolution dated 4-3-1983 has to be considered reasonably so that the General Service Conditions Bye law, 1:978 referred to above may be attracted to govern the service conditions of the employees so long as the decision dated 4-3-1983 of the Federation continued to be operative. It is a matter of public policy that an employee off public body is governed by fair and reasonable rules of service. The right of an employee of a public institution/body to be governed on fair and reasonable terms and conditions of service is, in fact, in the nature of a fundamental right and such right necessarily carries with it the right to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ in the event of the public body/institution violating the right of the employee or committing breach of its obligation to act or deal reasonably and fainly with its employees.;