Mere Adoption Of Govt Service Rules By Autonomous Bodies Doesn't Grant Their Staff Same Benefits As Govt Employees: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere adoption of government service rules by autonomous bodies does not confer the same rights on the employees of the autonomous body as those available to the government employees.Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and anr Vs. Bhagwan and Ors, Justice Abdul Moin held“From a perusal of the aforesaid...
The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere adoption of government service rules by autonomous bodies does not confer the same rights on the employees of the autonomous body as those available to the government employees.
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and anr Vs. Bhagwan and Ors, Justice Abdul Moin held
“From a perusal of the aforesaid judgment also it emerges that merely because the autonomous bodies have 'adopted' the government service rules, the same would not confer any right of the employees of the autonomous bodies to claim the same benefits as are admissible to government employees inasmuch as they would not fall within the ambit of being government employees or in government service.”
Factual Background
The petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher at Bahraich and applied for her inter-district transfer from District Bahraich to District Unnao. Though she was transferred, later it was found that she is not eligible for the transfer under the Government Order issued on 2nd June 2023, consequently, her transfer had been cancelled.
The Government Order dated 2nd June 2023 provides that any teacher whose spouse is in government service, i.e., in a service under the Union of India/ Indian Army/ Indian Air Force/ Indian Navy/ Central Para Military Forces and State Government and working under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad on a regular basis would be accorded 10 weightage points for transfer. Subsequently, a clarification was issued wherein it was stated that Government service is one where services of employee are governed by rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was entitled to 10 points weightage as her husband had been granted compassionate appointment by the Lucknow University under the “adopted” Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. It was argued that since there are no service rules governing the appointment of non-teaching staff in Lucknow University, it has adopted the rules of the State Government which are applicable for Group C posts.
Accordingly, the petitioner argued that since the rules under which her husband has been appointed have been issued by 'His Excellency The Governor' under Article 309, her husband would fall within the ambit of the aforesaid government order.
Per contra, counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner in her transfer application had indicated that her husband is a government servant and accordingly she was transferred. However, as soon as it was realized that her husband is working on the post of Senior Assistant in Lucknow University, her transfer was revoked as she would not be entitled to the 10 point weightage in terms of the Government order dated 2nd June 2023.
It was contended that mere “adoption” of rules issued by the Governor does not bring employees of an autonomous institution within the ambit of being a government employee.
High Court Verdict
On a detailed reading of Articles 309, 310, 311 & 320 of the Constitution of India, the Court held that the phrase "persons serving under the Government of India or the Government of State" includes person who are within the administrative control of the government. Such persons hold office at the pleasure of the Governor/ President and the rules governing theirs services are made in consultation with the respective Public Service Commissions.
“From a perusal of Articles 309, 310, 311 & 320 of the Constitution of India it emerges that so far as the facts of the instant case are concerned the phrase "persons serving under the Government of India or the Government of State" appears to have reference to such persons in respect of whom the administrative control is vested in the respective executive Government functioning in the name of President or the Governor. The said person would hold office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State. The rules for his recruitment would be made in consultation with the State Public Service Commission including the rules for making appointment to his post and in making promotion and transfer from one service to the other.”
The Court held that Lucknow University is an autonomous body which “adopted” the rules made by the State Government. The appointment of petitioner's husband, however, was not made in consultation with State Public Service Commission. The Court held that merely because the petitioner's husband was appointed under the 1974 Rules which were adopted by the University, will not make him a government servant or bestow upon him the benefits of being in a government service.
Rejecting the argument of the petitioner as being fallacious, the Court held that the services of the petitioner's husband cannot be said to be under the administrative control of the State Government.
“The fallacy of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner can also be understood from a simple example that in case a private company was to adopt the service rules of the Government in all its sphere of working whether the employee of the private company would become a Government servant or would be considered to be in Government service entitled for the benefit of the Government order dated 02.06.2023 read with the clarification dated 16.06.2023? The answer is obviously No !”
The Court placed reliance on State of Maharashtra and anr Vs. Bhagwan and Ors, wherein the Supreme Court had held that employees of autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, same service benefits as the Government employees. The Court had held that merely because the rules of the government have been adopted by the Autonomous institution, the services of such employees cannot be brought at par with those of government employees. “The State Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Deepti Singh vs. State Of U.P. Represented By Its Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Shiksha Lko And 6 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 473 [WRIT - A No. - 6662 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 473