1988 (12) TMI 335 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Termination of services under Article 310 of the Constitution
- Applicability of Article 311(2) of the Constitution
- Interpretation of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
- Impact of Article 310(1) of the Constitution on rule-making power under Article 309
- Consideration of equitable relief based on poverty and prolonged litigation

Analysis:
The respondent, a civilian worker in the Defence Department, had his services terminated under Article 310 of the Constitution without any reason provided. The respondent challenged the termination, seeking a declaration of illegality and compensation. The lower courts awarded damages, which were confirmed by the High Court of Kerala, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court noted that Article 311(2) did not apply to the respondent, as he was not entitled to its protection due to drawing his salary from Defence Estimates.

The key issue revolved around the applicability of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 to the respondent. The Court examined the interplay between Article 310(1) and Article 309 of the Constitution. It was established that the rule-making power under Article 309 is subject to Article 310(1), which embodies the pleasure doctrine. The Court cited precedents to clarify that rules made under Article 309 are subject to the pleasure doctrine and the limitations imposed by Article 311.

The Court rejected the argument that the 1965 Rules applied to the respondent, emphasizing that since Article 311(2) protection was not available, the Rules could not independently benefit him. The respondent's contention that the Rules were framed by the President to control his pleasure doctrine was deemed faulty. Additionally, the Court addressed the respondent's reliance on an admission by the appellants regarding the applicability of the Rules, stating that such admissions did not bind the appellants.

In a compassionate decision, the Court considered the respondent's poverty and the prolonged litigation, opting to retain the decree in the respondent's favor based on equitable grounds. Despite the appellants succeeding on the legal question, the respondent retained the decree due to compassionate considerations. The appellants were directed to bear the costs of the respondent. The Court highlighted the need for equitable relief in deserving cases and emphasized the unique circumstances of the respondent's case, leading to the decision to uphold the decree in his favor.