The Delhi
High Court on Thursday observed that government servants cannot be excluded
from the protection of rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of
India and set aside the 2019 Memorandum Order (M.O.) that de-recognised the
Central PWD Engineers Association.
The court
said that by virtue of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, the right
to form Association or Union or Cooperative Societies is a fundamental right
even though recognition of such Associations by the Government may not be a
fundamental right.
The
division bench of Justice Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendirata said
that the decision for ‘non-continuation of recognition’ could not have been
taken by DG, CPWD, without the prior approval of the Competent Authority i.e.
the Central Government, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, in view of Rule
2(a) of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993.
The court
said, “The government servants cannot be excluded from the protection of the
rights guaranteed by part III of the Constitution though the duties which they
may discharge as a public servant might involve restrictions of freedom in
terms of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of Article 19(1)(c)
of the Constitution of India, the right to form Association or Union or
Cooperative Societies is a fundamental right even though the recognition of
such Associations by the government may not be a fundamental right.”
The primary
objective of the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993, according to the court, is to grant
recognition to any Service Association to encourage legitimate union activities
in order to facilitate negotiations by the representative body, if necessary,
and to maintain harmonious relations between the government and employees.
The bench
was hearing the petition for writ filed by the Central PWD Engineers
Association, challenging a 2019 order issued by the Central Administrative
Tribunal. As alleged by the petitioners, the order denied the continuation of
recognition of the petitioner Association on the grounds that the required
documents as per the schedule specified in Rule 6(e) of the Central Civil
Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1993, were not submitted.
The
petitioner’s counsel argued before the high court that, according to Rule 2(a)
of the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993, orders for the grant, continuation, or revocation
of recognition could have been issued only by the “Government," which
refers to the Central Government.
Taking into
account the petitioner’s argument, the court noted that a simple reading of the
OM reveals that it was issued only with the sanction of the DG, CPWD, and “not
the approval of the Central Government".
“In view of
above, the OM dated January 09, 2019 referred to above, treating the petitioner
Association as unrecognized Service Association, without obtaining the approval
of the Competent Authority i.e. Central Government, is liable to be set aside
to aforesaid extent,” said the HC.
Responding
to the petitioners’ claim that the Association was entitled to continuation of
recognition in accordance with CCS (RSA) Rules, but that the respondents have
intentionally delayed the process, the court stated that “the rights and
privileges of the petitioner Association and office bearers could not be left
in limbo" pending the continuation of recognition request.
“The
recognition finally appears to have been granted to the petitioner Association
in 2021 for a period of five years from the date of issue of the letter but the
decision for the period 2009 to 2021 still needs to be reconsidered by the
Competent Authority in accordance with law, in view of setting aside of OM
dated January 09, 2019 to aforesaid extent. We accordingly deem it appropriate
to direct the Competent Authority/respondents to take an appropriate decision
in respect of the continuation of recognition in respect of petitioner
Association from 2009 till 2021, in accordance with law,” it added.
In light of
this, the court vacated the tribunal’s findings, thereby denying the petition
to suppress the office memorandum dated January 9, 2019, in relation to the
petitioner Association.
Upon
dismissing the appeal, the court ordered, “The issue regarding the continuation
of recognition of the petitioner Association for the period 2009-2021 be
remanded to the Competent Authority for consideration in accordance with the
law.”
Source: news18.com
Click Here to read / download the judgement (24 Pages) (https://www.livelaw.in/)
No comments:
Post a Comment