The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Central PWD Engineers Association & Ors. vs Union of India & Anr. consisting of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held that the right to form Associations or Union Cooperative Societies is a fundamental right even though the recognition of such Associations by the government may not be a fundamental right.
Facts:
The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (“Tribunal”) which denied recognition to their association, the Central PWD Engineers Association, because they did not submit the required documents as per the schedule specified under Rule 6(e) of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1993 (“CCS (RSA) Rules”). The petitioners were held to not be entitled to the benefits of a recognized association. However, since the association later submitted the required documents which were being considered by the respondent, they were directed to quickly re-verify and consider recognizing the association again.
Procedural History:
The petitioners filed a case before the Tribunal claiming that the Central PWD Engineers Association is one of the oldest service associations advocating for promotee engineers in CPWD and was formed in the early 1960s. In 1993, CCS (RSA) Rules were created to recognize service associations that promote the common service interests of their members. The petitioners argued that their association was recognized under these rules in 1996 and was approved for continuation in 2004 after membership verification. The Petitioner Association was granted recognition for five years, from 2004 to 2009, and the verification process was supposed to be completed in 2009. However, the respondents did not carry out the re-verification process and renew the recognition despite receiving details of the petitioner's members multiple times.
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a complaint with the Tribunal asking for respondent no. 1 to renew their recognition. Vide impugned order dated October 31, 2019, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. The petitioners were unhappy with the decision and filed a Writ Petition. They asked for interim orders against the transfer of two of the petitioners, but this request was denied. The Supreme Court issued directions that allowed the petitioners to stay in their current position until the writ petition was resolved. However, if the petitioner Association was found not to be recognized, the two petitioners in question would have to return to their previous position. During the writ petition, an O.M. was issued stating that a re-verification of membership was being conducted and recognition was granted to the petitioner Association in January 2021.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: It was contended that respondent No.2 failed in its duty and responsibility to carry out re-verification of membership of the Petitioner Association as per CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993. It was further contended that no deficiency was stated to have been pointed out by the respondents for correction. It was also contended that when an Association provides the information of its members, the government is responsible for verifying and granting recognition or renewal. Recognition can only be taken away if the Association violates Rules 5, 6, or 7 of the CCS (RSA) Rules, with the Association being given a chance to explain itself. It was emphasized that recognition was granted by the Central Government and that the DG, CPWD had no authority to declare an Association’s recognition invalid. Relying on Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors., it was contended that the 1993 CCS (RSA) Rules did not provide for automatic lapse of recognition and the Rules must be interpreted to give effect to the said meaning.
Respondent: It was contended that the recognition of the Petitioner Association expired on July 26, 2009. They requested to continue being recognized as a Service Association, but they applied one year and eight months after their recognition had expired. Therefore, they were not entitled to any benefits until their renewal was processed.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench observed that the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 apply to all government servant Service Associations, except for those in the Ministry of Railway and the Ministry of Defence workers. If a Service Association was recognized before the Rules were established, recognition only continues for one year or until it is withdrawn. Rules 5-8 outline the conditions for recognition and verification of membership. Although the Rules were established under the Constitution of India, they have been replaced by administrative OM/circulars, including one that mandates re-verification of membership every five years. The government intended for recognition to be valid for a specific period and for re-verification to be mandatory for the continuation of recognition.
It further noted that the distinction between the continuation of recognition and withdrawal of Service Associations needs to be understood in the context of Rules 5&6 of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993. The continuation of recognition is subject to compliance with certain clauses, and an annual submission of lists and accounts to the government. Non-continuation of recognition does not necessarily mean withdrawal, which can happen under certain circumstances provided in the rules. Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Mrs. Leela Jain, it opined that it is unreasonable to ignore the provisions of a statute simply because their ordinary meaning may lead to consequences that go against the Court's ideas of what is proper or just unless the words used are meaningless or absurd.
It opined that the petitioner Association had not officially ‘withdrawn’ from recognition but had been treated as ‘unrecognized’ because they failed to comply with Rule 6(e) of the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993. This rule requires the Association to provide a list of members, office bearers, updated rules, and audited statements of accounts after their Annual General Meeting before July 1st each year. Even though membership verification was to be done through the check-off system in payrolls, this does not excuse the Association from complying with Rule 6(e).
Regarding the contention that the decision to declare a petitioner Association as an unrecognized Service Association could not have been made by the Director General of CPWD, as the competent authority is the Central Government, it opined that the OM that declared the Association as unrecognized was issued with the approval of the DG, CPWD and not the Central Government. The OM could not have been issued without the approval of the Central Government, as per the definition in Rule 2(a) of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993. The OM was liable to be invalidated to the extent mentioned.
It held that the main goal of the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 is to give recognition to Service Associations to encourage legitimate union activities and maintain a good relationship between the government and employees. Even though government workers may have restrictions on their freedoms due to their duties, they still have the right to form associations or unions. This right is protected by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, although recognition of these associations by the government is not necessarily a fundamental right. It was unfair that the recognition of an Association had been delayed for so long, as it denied the Association and its leaders of their rights and privileges. This went against the purpose of forming the Association in the first place, despite the existence of rules that govern the recognition process. The authorities should have made a quick decision about the recognition of the Association.
Judgment:
The Bench rejected the Tribunal’s decision to decline a request to cancel an office memorandum relating to a petitioner Association. However, the Tribunal had already directed for the recognition of the Association to be verified and granted, which had since been done. The matter of the Association's recognition between 2009 and 2021 was to be reconsidered by the Competent Authority. In the meantime, any actions taken against two members of the Association were to be paused until a decision was made on its recognition.
Case: Central PWD Engineers Association & Ors. vs Union of India & Anr.
Citation: W.P.(C) 11733/2019
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
For Petitioners: Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For Respondents: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Ms. Reba Jena Mishra and Ms. Poonam Mishra, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
