Q: I work in a government office. My colleagues and I have serious grievances against the conduct of higher officials of our department and the recent administrative changes the management is trying to bring about, which will adversely affect our service conditions. Since none of us individually want to lodge complaints officially, can we do so by filing a public interest litigation (PIL) through a third party? If so, will this litigation have to be filed in the administrative tribunal or the high court?
Name withheld
A: PILs can only be filed before the high court and not before the administrative tribunals. The object of the state and central administrative tribunals is to provide quick redress in service disputes. Their jurisdiction and powers are strictly defined by statute and they don’t enjoy any plenary power. They cannot therefore entertain matters filed by persons other than the person actually “aggrieved”. Thus, contemplating any such proceeding before the tribunal is out of question. It is also doubtful whether you can maintain the proposed PIL before the high court in these circumstances, since service matters cannot be brought within the purview of PIL. The reason is that service matters are primarily concerned with the specific rights of an individual or a group of individuals and don’t affect the public cause. It is also pertinent to mention that whereas the success of public interest litigations is one of the proud achievements of our judicial system, the judiciary has always tried to ensure that only genuine cases are entertained. Thus, the courts have denounced the abuse of this legal device, by “busybodies, wayfarers, meddlesome interlopers or officious interveners” who may try to take advantage of this for monetary gain. The Supreme Court has in one particular case recently commented that “public interest litigation” should not be “publicity interest litigation” or “paise income litigation”.
Q: I am a permanent central government employee and want to know if my employer has the right to include a condition in my service contract by which it can terminate my employment without stating reasons by only serving a notice for a particular period, as long as such termination is not by way of punishment? If so, can my service be terminated even if I have an impeccable record and that too without holding disciplinary proceedings?
N. Halder
A: Your fears are unfounded. Though Article 310 of the Constitution says that a government servant holds his or her office only during the pleasure of the President or Governor, such “doctrine of pleasure” is not unfettered. It is subject to various constitutional restrictions such as the provisions of Article 311, which protects government servants to the extent that they cannot be removed or dismissed: (a) by any person subordinate to his appointing authority, and (b) without first being given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. It is now well established that the State can’t avoid the implications of Article 311 by including a contractual provision that it can terminate the service of an employee by giving a notice. The courts have pointed out that the words “removal” and “dismissal” used in Article 311 encompass “every kind of termination of service” of a government servant. As such, any rule or contractual provision to the contrary is liable to be declared unconstitutional and against public policy, to the extent that it purports to confer a right of termination of the employment of a permanent government employee merely by giving him a notice and without a hearing.
Send your letters to Inlaw at
The Telegraph,
Jobs Desk, 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street,
Calcutta 700001;
or fax at 225 3142;
or send e-mails to jobs@abpmail.com.
