Union of India & Ors Vs. Smt. V.P. Parukutty
[1996] INSC 1528 (29 November 1996)
K. Ramaswamy,
G.T. Nanavati
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Delay
condoned.
Leave
granted.
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. 767/86 reversing the judgment
of the learned single judge.
The
admitted position is that the respondent was appointed as an agent the National
savings scheme called Mahila Pradhan kshetriya 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 employee working in the post
office (brother) and, therefore, agency was not validly created. The respondent
challenged that order by filing a writ petition in the High court sand also the
circular dated 5.1.1981 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 nor arbitrary
and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition, Feeling 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 instructions 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, mohter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, so-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 as no clear finding has been recorded by the
authority establishing breach of the said instructions, we do not think that this
is a care warranting interference. It will be open to appellants to have the
post-master transferred to any other place. Though we find that the view taken
by the High Court is not correct, in view of the peculiar facts of this case,
the appointment of respondent is not disturbed.
The
appeal is disposed disposed of accordingly. No costs.
IN THE
MATTER OF :
Back
Pages: 1 2