LexFERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 19, 1996 B [J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.) SelVice Law: Fertilizer C01poration of India-Articles 66, 69 of tlie A1ticles of As- C sociation-Pennanent abs01ption of a govemment se1vant in a C01pora- tion-An order or notification has to be issued by the Corporation-A finding cannot be recorded merely on the basis of some c01respondence or notifica- tion issued by others-Wlit issued by the High Cowt to the C01poration to take back the employee in se1Vice on the ground that he was pennanently absorbed in the COJporation-Held : Uncalled for and hence set aside. D • The Respondent was working in the Junior Administrative grade in the Indian Audit and Accounts Service. While he was on deputation in the Bureau of Public Enterprises, he was selected by the Public Enterprises Selection Board for the post of Director (Finance) in the Appellant-Cor- E poration. He was appointed with effect from 8.6.1982, in terms of Article 69 for a period of five years or till the age of his superannuation, whichever was earlier. After two years of joining, another order was issued on 12.11.1984 saying that the Respondent had been appointed in the same post in the F Cement Corporation of India Ltd. for a period of two years. The Respon- dent was requested to hand over charge w.e.f. 24.11.1984. The Respondent made a request to the authorities to fix the term as five years so that he may not be denied the benefit given to him earlier. However, on his own request the Respondent was relieved from the Appellant- Corporation on 5.12.1984. He was removed from the post of Director (Finance) in the G Cement Corporation of India on 20.1.1986, by the President of India. When the Respondent wanted to rejoin the Appellant-Corporation, he was in- formed that his services with them had ceased immediately on his appoint- ment in the Cement Corporation of India Ltd. The Respondent submitted before the higher authorities that his permanent absorption in the Appel- H lant-Corporation was condition precedent to his appointment with them 816 ) .... F.C.I. v. U.0.1. 817 and further even the order of retirement of the Respondent form his A original post stated that "consequent upon his permanent absorption· in Fertilizer Corporation ..... he is deemed to have retired". The Appellant- Corporation refused to take him back on the ground that after he had been relieved from the post as desired by him, there was no question of his continuing in the said post. The Respondent filed a Writ petition which was allowed and direc- tion was given to the Appellant-Corporation to take back the Respondent in service as Director (Finance ) w.e.f. 20.10.1986 and in case the post of Director (Finance) was not available, then he should be appointed in another equivalent post with all consequential benefits. B c The Appellant-Corporation submitted that the claim of the Respon- dent that he had been appointed on permanent basis in the Corporation was not borne out from records, that the said claim has been made by the respondent only after he was removed from the post of Director (Finance) of the Cement Corporation of India, that the respondent had been ap- D pointed for a fixed tenure of five years and there was no question of his being absorbed on permanent basis in the appellant-corporation; that even before the expiry of the said period of five years, the respondent of his own volition left the service of the Corporation to join the Cement Corporation of India and there was no question of his coming back to the Appellant- E Corporation to join the post of Director (Finance) or any equivalent post and that merely on the basis of notification issued by the Government retiring the Respondent from service mentioned that, "consequent upon his permanent absorption in the Fertilizers Corporation of India Limited", it cannot be held that the respondent had been absorbed in the Corpora- tion on permanent basis and any such· statement shall be of no conse- F quence so far as the Appellant-Corporation was concerned. The Respondent-employee contended that in his communication to the Comptroller Auditor General of India, he has given his consent for permanent absorption in the Appellant-Corporation and agreed for ter- G mination of his lien. He also referred to the retirement order issued by the Government mentioning the permanent absorption. Allo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.