UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SMT. V.P. PARUKUTTY on 29 November 1996

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

v.

SMT. V.P. PARUKUTTY NOVEMBER 29, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

A

B

National Savings Scheme-Mahi/a Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana-Appointment of agents-Government instrnctions that no near rela-tions should be appointed as an agent by the Post Master-Respondent appointed as Agent-His agency temiinated on the ground that he was c brother of an employee working in the Post office-Tem1ination of agency unsuccessfully challenged before a single Judge of the High Cowt-On appeal Division Bench held that mere existence of near relations in the division is not enough for tenninating the agencrAppeal before Supreme Court-Held, the view taken by the Division Bench was not correct-However as the respondent has been working right from 1976 and as no clear finding has been D recorded by the authority establishing breach of the said instmctions this is not a case warranting inteiference-Ihe appointment of respondent is not to be disturbed.

c

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 15605 of 1996.

E:

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7.88 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 8428 of 1984.

R. Mohan, S. Wasim A. Qadri and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants.

F

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

G

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court made on 30.11.1990 in Writ Appeal No.767/88 reversing the judgment of the learned single Judge.

The admitted position is that the respondent was appointed as an agent in the National Savings Scheme called Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya H 383

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Bachat Yojana as per order dated 7th August, 1976 under which the respondent was working as an agent. The agency was terminated by order dated 2.8.1994 on the ground that the respondent is a near relation to the employee working in the Post Office (brother) and, therefore, agency was not validly created. The respondent challenged that order by filing a writ B petition in the High Court and also the circular dated 5.12.1981 on the basis of which the said order was passed. The circular was challenged on the ground that it was discriminatory and arbitrary. The High court found that the circular was neither discriminatory and arbitrary. The High Court found that the circular was neither discriminatory nor arbitrary and, there-fore, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the \'irder passed by C the learned single Judge, the respondent filed an appeal in the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeal. We are clearly of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench that mere existence of near relations in the division is not enough for terminating the agency is not correct, in view of the clear policy of the Government and the Government instruc-D !ions directing that no near relations, namely, legitimate child, or step-child, father/step-father, mother/step-mother, husband, brother/step-brother, sister/step-sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, as defined under the scheme, should be appointed as an agent at the place of work by the post-master. But as the respondent has been working right from 1976 and E as no clear finding has been recorded by the authority establishing breach of the said instructions, we do not think that this is a case warranting interference. It will be open to appellants to have the post-master trans-ferred to 'l"Y other place. Though we find that the view taken by the High Court is nllt correct, in view of the peculiar facts of this case, the appoint-F men! of respondent is not disturbed.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Appeal disposed of.

T.N.A.

-

-