UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus K.S. SUBRAMANIAN

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1074 · Decided: 15-12-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
K.S. SUBRAMANIAN 
DECEMBER 15, 1988 
[G.L. OZA, B.C. RAY AND K. JAGANNATHA 
SHE1TY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950/Articles 309, 310 and 311 Civilian 
worker in Defence Department-Whether provisions of Arts. 309-311 
applicable-No fetter in the exercise of the pleasure of the President or 
Governor. 
Civil Services/Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and 
Appeal) Rule 1965: Civil worker in Defence Departments-Rules-
Whether applicable. 
D 
Practice and Procedure: Supreme Court-Equitable relief will not 
be denied in deserving cases. 
The respondent was a pern1ancnt and confirmed civilian worker 
in the Defence Department and he had a right to continue till he 
attained the age of 60 years. His services, however, were terminated 
E 
under Article 310 of the Constitution without assigning any reason. He 
instituted a suit for declaration that the termination of his services was 
illegal and void· ab init(o. In the alternative, he claimed damages or 
compensation for the illegal termination. The Trial Court awarded him 
Rs.25,000 as damages together with interest at 6 per cent per annum for 
the illegal termination of his services. That decree was confirmed by the 
F 
High Court. 
The Courts below have proceeded on the basis that Article 311(2) 
of the Constitution was not applicable to the respondent, but the 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,· 1965 
were, however, applicable. 
In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellants it was 
contended that the reasoning of the Courts below is untenable and 
uncalled for. On behalf of the respondent-employee it was contended 
that the 1965 Rules are applicable to the respondent and that the decree 
under appeal should not be set aside. The poverty of the respondent and 
H the long drawn litigation by which the respondent has suffered 
:' 
1074 
., 
·' 
-f<-
•KJ,..;..;;-..;·.----f; 
,, 
U.0.1. v. K.S. SUBRAMANIAN [SHETIY, J.] 
1075 
•. 
immeasurably were also highlighted. 
A 
Allowing the appeal on a question of law, this Court, 
HELD: I. The respondent is not entitled to protection of Article 
311(2), since he occupied the post drawing his salary from the Defence 
B 
Estimates. That being the position, the exclusionary effect of Article 
311(2) deprives him the protection which he is otherwise entitled to. In 
other words, there is no fetter in the exercise of the pleasure of the 
' . 
President or the Governor. [t079D-E] 
2. The 1965 Rules among others, provide procedure for imposing 
the· three major penalties that are set out under Article 311(2). When c 
Article 311(2) itself stands excluded and the protection thereunder is 
withdrawn there is little that one could do under the 1965 Rules in 
favour of the respondent. The said Rules cannot independently play any 
) 
part since the rule making power under Article 309 is subject to Article 
'''~': 
311. [1079F-G] 
D 
L.R. Khurana v. Union of India, [1971] 3 SCR 908 at 911; 
Ramanatha Pillai v. The State of Kera/a, [1974] 1 SCR 515 at 521 and 
Union of India v. Tulsi Ram, [1985] 3 SCC 398, followed. 
3. This Court will not deny any equitable relief in deserving 
E 
cases. The case on hand cannot be an exception to that rule and indeed, 
it is eminently a fit case. [toSOF] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 212 
(NCE) of 1975. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.1974 of the Kerala 
F 
High Court in A.S. No. 510 of 1972. 
V.C. Mahajan andC.V. Subba Rao for the Appellants. 
T.S. Krishnamurthy and N. Sudhakaran for the Responaen.t. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal by special leave is 
against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the High Court 
of Kerala. 
H 
.. 
A 
B 
c 
-0 
E 
1076 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
Short factual background is this. 
The respondent was appointed on October 15, 195 i as an 
ordinary industrial labourer at Naval Base, Cochin. He was promoted 
as a Welder Gr. II on September 18, 1956. He was confirmed in that 
post. He was thus a permanent civilian industrial employee. On 
October 25, 1968, his services, however, were terminated under Arti-
cle 310 of the Constitution. No rea~on was assigned. He instituted a 
suit in forma-pauperise for declaration that the termination of his 
service was illegal and void ab initio. In the alternative, he claimed 
damages or compensation of Rs. 75,000 for illegal termination. The 
trial 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.