LexAVINASH CHAND & ORS. versus AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEES
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2010] 7 S.C.R. 1173 AVINASH CHAND & ORS. v. CHAIRMAN MARKET COMMITTEE & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8229-8230 of 2003) MAY 6, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEES: Auctioneers in Market Committees - Working on commission basis - Age of retirement i.... Instructions issued by Chief Administrator in 1992 reiterating similar instructions of 1982, not to continue the services of auctioneers beyond A B c the age of 60 - Challenged - HELD: The High Court has D rightly held that: (1) till the issuance of the instructions in 1982 as reiterated in 1992 there was no maximum age limit laid down for auctioneers who had been engaged on commission basis; (2) the auctioneers were not employees of the Board or the Committees and their services were not governed by any Rules; (3) it was only appropriate in the absence of Rules, E that the instructions issued by the Chief Administrator which were in the interest of the Board and the Committees and, therefore, visualised u/s 33(4)(ii) of the Act, should be made applicable to the case of the appellants - It cannot be said that the step taken by the Chief Administrator was arbitrary F or without any basis - In the absence of rules, it was open to the Chief Administrator to fix the retirement age - Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 - s.33(4)(ii) - Punjab Agr(cu/tural Produce Markets General Rules, 1962 - r.24(5). G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8229-8230 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 15.3.2002 of the High 1173 H 1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 7431 of 1993 and CWP No. 12091 of 2000. Debasis Misra for the· Appellants. B Sanjay Singh, Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. These appeals by way of special leave are directed C against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 15th March, 2010 whereby the writ petition challenging the provision of a retirement age for auctioneers in the Market Committee, have been dismissed. The facts are as under:- D 2. The appellants, and several others who had filed writ petitions in the High Court, were working as auctioneers on commission basis in the Market Committee, Kaithal since the year 1963-64 as per Rule 24(5) of the Punjab Agricultural !.:. Produce Markets General Rules, 1962, (hereinafter for short 'the Rules'). On 3rd November, 1992, the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Board addressed a directive to the Chairmen and Secretaries of the Market Committees reiterating a directive dated 26th August, 1982, that the F auctioneers on commission basis should not be allowed to work beyond the age of 60 years. As a consequence of the aforesaid instructions, the services of the appellants were terminated on 27th August, 2000 as they had crossed the age of 60 years. The instructions aforesaid were accordingly, G challenged before the High Court. On notice, the respondent Marketing Board and the concerned Market Committees controverted the pleas raised in the writ petition. It was pointed out that the appellants and others like them had been engaged on fixed rates on commission basis as per bye-law 28 of the Punjab Market Committee Bye-laws, 1963 and that the H AVINASH CHAND & ORS. v. CHAIRMAN MARKET 1175 COMMITTEE & ORS. nstructions had been issued in conformity with Rule 24(5) A ibidem. The High Court, during the course of its judgment observed that Section 33(4)(ii) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1961, which was applicable to Haryana '\\State as well provided that it was open to the Board to issue instructions in matters which were likely to adversely affect the B interests of the Committee or the producers 6r dealers or any functionaries working in the notified area, and the instructions were thus authorised by statute. The Court also noted that in the arguments made on behalf of the appellants that the instructions of 1992 could not be made retrospectively c applicable to their case, it was pointed out that similar instruction had first been issued in the year 1982 (and had only been reiterated in the year 1992) and that in any case the auctioneers were not employees of the Committees or of the Marketing Board. The Court accordingly held that the 0 instructions issued by the Ch
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.