B SRINIVASA RAO Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYD
LAWS(APH)-1992-3-14
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 26,1992

B.SRINIVASA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, ECIL, HYD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Petitioner was an employee of the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre, for short 'BARC' at Bombay. That was a unit of Department of Atomic Energy of Government of India. He commenced service on 24-8-1960. In 1967, the Government of India decided to reorganise a part of the Atomic Energy Department into Public Sector Corporation. Consequently, the Electronics Corporation of India Limited was formed. The vacancies in that industrial unit were filled by transferring some of the workmen of BARC subject to confirmation of willingness of such workmen. Petitioner joined ECILon 18-5-1967. Petitioner submits that even after transfer to an autonomous Corporation, he continued to be governed by the provisions of the fundamental Rules, the Subsidiary Rules and the Central Service Rules, as applied to employees of the Department of Atomic Energy. According to the petitioner, his assignment to the ECIL was a transfer to Foreign Service on deputation in accordance with Fundamental Rule III. Consequently he has a lien in the parent department and is governed by the service conditions which were applicable in that department. Government of India had issued letter No.Fl(13) E.IV-A-61 dt.26-4-1964 of the Ministry of Finance. That letter was annexed to his transfer Memorandum dt.20-4-1967. The above letter assured that consequent on the conversion of Government Department into an autonomous Organisation, employees who were transferred would be allowed to carry forward leave to their credit on the date of transfer. Petitioner submits that transferred employees are continued to be governed by the previous service rules. The age of retirement according to Fundamental Rule 56(b), which according to the petitioner, applies to him as an employee of Department of Atomic Energy/BARC is 60 years. Petitioner claims that he is a 'workman' as per the above rule. He submits that he is a 'skilled workman' who is liable to be retired from service only on attainment of 60 years. He also relies on Fundamental Rule 14(A) which provides that a Government servant's lien on a post, may in no circumstances, be terminated even with his consent, that orders of permanent absorption of such Government servant can be issued only after the registration of the Government servant has been accepted by the Government and that his lien shall stand terminated only on his acquiring a lien on a permanent post outside the cadre on which he is borne.
(2.)Petitioner submits that in his case, his lien in Department of Atomic Energy/BARC was never terminated in any valid proceeding, nor was he informed of any such termination of lien, nor has he resigned from Government service. He therefore submits that he continues to be governed by the service conditions applicable to employees of the BARC. Yet another submission of the petitioner Is that other Autonomous Corporation like BARC-Bombay, Uranium Corporation, Indian Rate Earths, Atomic Mineral Division, Nuclear Fuel Corporation and Nuclear Power Corporation, which had their genesis in the Atomic Energy Department are following the earlier rule of retirement of workmen/employees only at the age of 60 years. In these circumstances, petitioner assails the order of the 1st respondent No.ECIL/PG/(E)/00681 dt. 25-10-1991, requiring him to retire from service with effect from 31-3-1992. He therefore seeks a direction that he shall be permitted to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years.
(3.)Respondents 1 and 5 have filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that petitioner was transferred after ascertaining his willingness to the ECIL, and on such transfer, he ceased to hold any lien in any post in BARC. Clause 2(14) of the Government Memorandum dt.26-4-1967, whereunder the petitioner was transferred stated;
"On employment by the Corporation they finally ceased to be in Government Service and thereafter were governed by the rules and regulations framed by the Corporation from time to] time."
It is asserted that petitioner accepted his employment in the Corporation, subject to these terms, and cannot therefore now claim that he continues to be the servant of the Department of Atomic Energy/BARC. Reference is also made toMemorandumNo.ECIL/PAD/E/IV/122/73/13697,dt.10-12-1973 whereby the ECIL promulgated rules relating to the age of superannuation, retirement benefit etc., of its employees. Rule 2(14) provided that normally the age of superannuation shall be 58 years for all categories of employees and in respect of scientific and technical personnel extension may be granted in individual cases beyond the age of 58 years but upto 60 years only subject to fitness and suitability of the individual based on year to year basis with the approval of the Board of Directors. Respondent submits that petitioner is governed by the above rules and is not entitled at this distance of time to claim that he shall be continued in service till the age of 60 years, because he continues to hold a lien in his parent department viz., BARC. The impugned memorandum was issued in terms of the above rules against which the petitioner had not remonstrated so far.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.