The Delhi High Court elucidated that the key objective of the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993, aimed at promoting and fostering legitimate union activities. The High Court delved into the core purpose of these rules, highlighting their intention to grant recognition to Service Associations.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioners filed an application before the Tribunal claiming that the Central PWD Engineers Association, which has been advocating for the rights of promotee Engineers in CPWD since the 1960s, should be recognized as a service association.
The Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1993”) allowed for the recognition of service associations to promote the common interests of their members. The Petitioners stated that their association was granted recognition by the Union of India in 1996 and the recognition was approved for a further five-year period in 2004. Hence, the present case.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that Respondent No.2, the concerned authority, neglected its duty to re-verify the petitioner Association's membership in accordance with the Rules,1993. It was claimed that the O.M., and the subsequent transfer order transferring Petitioners No.2 and No.3 out of Delhi, were motivated by malicious intent, as they were based on the assertion that the petitioner Association was not recognized. It was contended that their association had 50% membership of the working cadre strength in 2009/2010, and therefore, the recognition should have been continued.
It was emphasised that the rules stipulate that once recognition is granted, it continues unless withdrawn following the procedure specified in Rule 8 of Rules, 1993. It was also pointed out that only the Central Government has the authority to grant and withdraw recognition, and the Director General of CPWD does not possess the power to declare an association as not having valid recognition.
It was also contended that the Rules, 1993 do not stipulate an automatic lapse of recognition and should be interpreted accordingly.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that according to the instructions/guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (hereinafter referred to as “DoPT”) the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs approved the continuation of the petitioner Association's recognition under the Rules, 1993 for a period of five years from the date of issuing the said OM.
It was argued that the recognition of the Petitioner Association expired on July 26, 2009. It was noted that the Petitioner Association applied for the continuation of their recognition as a service association only through a letter, with a delay of one year and eight months after the expiration of their recognition.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that the Rules, 1993 were enacted under the powers granted by the Constitution of India. These rules apply to all government service associations except for industrial employees of the Ministry of Railway and workers in defence installations of the Ministry of Defense, who have separate recognition rules. The Rules hold the same legal force as a statute, even though they are made by the Executive under the Constitution. The Court noted that the continuation of recognition for a service association is subject to certain conditions and compliance with rules related to membership verification, office bearers' information, rules copy, and audited accounts submission. The contention that non-continuation of recognition amounts to withdrawal was deemed incorrect, as recognition could be continued or withdrawn according to the rules.
The High Court observed that the main purpose of the Rules, 1993 was to recognize Service Associations and promote legitimate union activities. This recognition enables the representative body to negotiate on behalf of the employees and helps maintain a harmonious relationship between the government and its employees. Although government servants may have certain restrictions on their freedom as public servants, they cannot be denied the rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
The right to form associations, unions, or cooperative societies is considered a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, even if the government's recognition of such associations is not a fundamental right itself.
The decision of the Court:
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition.
Case Title: Central PWD Engineers Association and Ors.v Union of India and Anr.
Case No.: Writ Petition Civil 11733 of 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. C. Mohan Rao, and Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Ms. Reba Jena Mishra and Ms. Poonam Mishra
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
