Holding

Article 311(2) does not apply to civilian employees drawing salary from Defence estimates, rendering the pleasure doctrine under Article 310 operative, and the 1965 Rules cannot override this, but the decree for damages is upheld on equitable grounds.

Summary

K.S. Subramanian, a permanent civilian worker in the Defence Department, was terminated under Article 310 of the Constitution without cause. He sued for a declaration of illegal termination and damages, obtaining a decree for Rs.25,000 which was affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether Article 311(2) protection applied to a civilian employee whose salary is drawn from Defence estimates and whether the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 could be invoked despite the exclusion of Article 311(2). The Court held that Article 311(2) does not protect such employees, making the pleasure doctrine under Article 310 applicable, and that the 1965 Rules are subordinate to Article 311 and cannot override this. Nevertheless, on equitable grounds, the Court declined to disturb the decree awarding damages and ordered the appellants to pay costs to the respondent.

Issues considered

Whether Article 311(2) of the Constitution protects a civilian worker in the Defence Department whose salary is drawn from Defence estimates.
Whether the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 are applicable to such an employee despite the exclusion of Article 311(2).
Whether equitable relief (damages) can be denied when the legal position favours the government.

Legislation cited

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
Constitution of Indias. Article 309, s. Article 310, s. Article 311

Subjects

Article 311Article 310pleasure doctrinecivilian employeedefence departmentCentral Civil Services Rules 1965equitable relieftermination of serviceconstitutional law

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
v.
K.S. SUBRAMANIAN

DECEMBER 15, 1988

B [G.L. OZA, B.C. RAY AND K. JAGANNATHA
SHE1TY, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950/Articles 309, 310 and 311 Civilian
worker in Defence Department-Whether provisions of Arts. 309-311 .,
applicable-No fetter in the exercise of the pleasure of the President or
Governor.
c
Civil Services/Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rule 1965: Civil worker in Defence Departments-Rules-
Whether applicable.
·'
D Practice and Procedure: Supreme Court-Equitable relief will not
be denied in deserving cases.

The respondent was a pern1ancnt and confirmed civilian worker
in the Defence Department and he had a right to continue till he
attained the age of 60 years. His services, however, were terminated
E under Article 310 of the Constitution without assigning any reason. He
instituted a suit for declaration that the termination of his services was
illegal and void· ab init(o. In the alternative, he claimed damages or
compensation for the illegal termination. The Trial Court awarded him
Rs.25,000 as damages together with interest at 6 per cent per annum for
the illegal termination of his services. That decree was confirmed by the
F High Court.

The Courts below have proceeded on the basis that Article 311(2)
of the Constitution was not applicable to the respondent, but the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,· 1965
were, however, applicable.

In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellants it was
contended that the reasoning of the Courts below is untenable and
uncalled for. On behalf of the respondent-employee it was contended
that the 1965 Rules are applicable to the respondent and that the decree
under appeal should not be set aside. The poverty of the respondent and
H the long drawn litigation by which the respondent has suffered :'
1074
•KJ,..;..;;-..;·.----f;
-f<-

,,
•. U.0.1. v. K.S. SUBRAMANIAN [SHETIY, J.]

immeasurably were also highlighted.
1075

A

Allowing the appeal on a question of law, this Court,

HELD: I. The respondent is not entitled to protection of Article
311(2), since he occupied the post drawing his salary from the Defence
B
Estimates. That being the position, the exclusionary effect of Article
311(2) deprives him the protection which he is otherwise entitled to. In
other words, there is no fetter in the exercise of the pleasure of the
President or the Governor. [t079D-E]
'.
2. The 1965 Rules among others, provide procedure for imposing
the· three major penalties that are set out under Article 311(2). When c
Article 311(2) itself stands excluded and the protection thereunder is
withdrawn there is little that one could do under the 1965 Rules in
favour of the respondent. The said Rules cannot independently play any
)
part since the rule making power under Article 309 is subject to Article
'''~': 311. [1079F-G]
D
L.R. Khurana v. Union of India, [1971] 3 SCR 908 at 911;
Ramanatha Pillai v. The State of Kera/a, [1974] 1 SCR 515 at 521 and
Union of India v. Tulsi Ram, [1985] 3 SCC 398, followed.

3. This Court will not deny any equitable relief in deserving
cases. The case on hand cannot be an exception to that rule and indeed, E
it is eminently a fit case. [toSOF]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 212
(NCE) of 1975.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.1974 of the Kerala F
High Court in A.S. No. 510 of 1972.

V.C. Mahajan andC.V. Subba Rao for the Appellants.

T.S. Krishnamurthy and N. Sudhakaran for the Responaen.t.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal by special leave is
against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the High Court

. of Kerala.
H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. .,
....
A Short factual background is this.

The respondent was appointed on October 15, 195 i as an
ordinary industrial labourer at Naval Base, Cochin. He was promoted
as a Welder Gr. II on September 18, 1956. He was confirmed in that
post. He was thus a permanent civilian industrial employee. On
B October 25, 1968, his services, however, were terminated under Arti-
cle 310 of the Constitution. No rea~on was assigned. He instituted a
suit in forma-pauperise for declaration that the termination of his
service was illegal and void ab initio. In the alternative, he claimed • I
damages or compensation of Rs. 75,000 for illegal termination. The
trial court awarded him Rs.25 ,000 as damages together with interest at
6 per cent per annum for the illegal termination of his services. That
c decree was confirmed by the High Court of Kerala. This appeal is
directed against that iudgment of the High Court. On July 30, 1976, a
Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal on merits. But upon review,
that judgment was set aside and the appeal was ordered to be listed for ..
fresh disposal. So the matter has come up before us.
-0
There is no dispute on the material facts. There is no challenge
that the respondent was a permanent and confirmed civilian worker in
the Defence Department. In fact, it.is an admitted position between
the parties. He had a right to continue till he attained the age of 60
years. Article 459(b) of the Civil Service Regulations provides for that. I
E It reads:

"(b) A workman who is governed by these Regula-
tions shall be retained in service till the day he attains the
age of sixty years.

F Note. In this clause, "a workman" means a highly
skilled, skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled artisan employed
on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or a work charged
establishment."

The courts below have proceeded on the basis that Article 3 l i
G (2) of the Constitution was not applicable to the respondent,"lmt the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965 (for short" 1965 Rules") were, however, applicable.

Mr. Mahajan for the appellants contends that the reasoning of
the Courts below is untenable and uncalled for. We think that the
H counsel is on terrafirma. There cannot be any dispute as to the non
.. -. U.0.1. v. K.S. SUBRAMANIAN [SHETTY, l.I 1077

applicability of Article 311\L) to the case of respondent. A civilian
A
employee in Defence Service who is paid salary out of the estimates of
the Ministry of Defence does not enjoy the protection of Article
•• 3 ii(2). In L.R. Khurana v. Union of India, [ 1971] 3 SCR 908 at 9 i l,
this Court observed:

"The question whether the case of the appellant was B
governed by Article 31 l of the Constitution stands con-

'. eluded by two decisions of this court. In Jagatrai Mahin-
chand Ajwani v. Union of India, C.A. 1185 of 1965 dated
6.2.1967 it was held that an Engineer in the Military
Service who was drawing his salary from the Defence Esti-
mates could not claim the protection of Article 311(2) of
the Constitution. In that case also the appellant was found c
to have held a post connect:_d with Defence as in the pre-
sent case. This decision was followed in S. P. Behl v. Union
' of India, C.A. 1918 of 1966 dated· 8.3.1968. Both these
decisions fully cover the case of the appellant so far as the
applicability of Article 311 is concerned." D

Now the only question is whether the 1965 Rules framed under
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution proprio vigore apply to
the respondent or become inoperative in view of Art. 310 of the Con-
stitution? Article 310( 1) deals with the tenure of office of persons
serving the Union or the State. It provides: E

"Except as expressly provided by this Constitution,
every person who is a member of a defence service or of a
civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or holds
--' any post connected with defence or any civil post under the
Union, holds office during the pleasure of the President, F
and every person who is a member of a civil service of a
State or holds any civil post under a State holds office
during the pleasure of the Governor of the State."

The Art. 310(2) deals with cases of persons appointed under contract.
The doctrine of pleasure of the President is thus embodied under G
Article 310(1). The scope of this Article coupled with Article 309 has
been explained in Ramanatha Pillai v. The State of Kera/a, [ 1974] l
SCR 515 at 521, where this Court observed:

~· "Article 309 provides that subject to the provisions of the
Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of
A
persons appointed, to public services and posts in connec-
tion with the affairs of the Union or of any State. There-
fore, Acts in respect of terms and conditions of service of
persons are contemplated. Such acts of Legislature must
however be subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
B This attracts Article 310(1). The proviso to Article 309
makes it competent to the President or such person as he
may direct in the case of services and posts in connection
.. i
with the affairs of the Union and for the Governor of a
State or such person as he may direct in the case of services
or posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make
rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of
c service of persons appointed, to such services and posts
under the Union and the State. These Rules and the exer-
cise of power conferred on the delegate must be subject to
Artide 3 l'O. The result is that Article 309 cannot impair or
affect the pleasure of the President or the Governor therein
D specified. Article 309 is, therefore, to be read subject to
Article 3 IO."

The operation of Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 on
the pleasure doctrine embodied under Article 310( I) has been con-
sidered by this Court in Union of India v. Tulsi Ram, [1985] 3 SCC 398
E where it was observed at 483:

"The opening words of Article 309 make that article exp-
ressly 'Subject to the provisions of this Constitution'. Rules
made under the proviso to Article 309 or under Acts refer-
able to that article must, therefore, be made subject to the
F provisions of the Constitution if they are to be valid. Arti-
cle 310( 1) which embodies the pleasure doctrine is a provi-
sion contained in the Constitution. Therefore, rules made
under the proviso to Article 309 or under Acts referable to
that article are subject to Article 310(1). By the opening
words of Article 310(1) the pleasure doctrine contained
G therein operates "Except as expressly provided by this
Constitution". Article 31 l is an express provision of the
Constitution. Therefore, rules made under the proviso to
Article 309 or under Acts referable to Article 309 would be
subject both to Article 310(1) and Article 311. This position
was pointed out by Subba Rao, J., as he then was, in his
H separate but concurring judgment in Moti Ram Deka, case
U.0.1. v. K.S. SUBRAMANIAN ISHE1TY, J.] 1079

(i964) 5 SCR 683 at 734, namely, that rules under Article, A
309 are subject to the pleasure doctrine and the pleasure
doctrine is itself subject to the two limitations imposed
thereon by Article 3 I i. ··

In Tulsi Ram case, the decision in Challappan's case (Divisional
Perso_nnel Officer, S.Rly_, v,_T.R. Ch_allappan, 11976] 1 SCR 783) which B
had taken a contrary view, has been expressly overruled on the ground
that· "rules cannot do what the second proviso to Article 3 i 1(2)
denies."

By virtue of Article 311(2), no civil servani can be dismissed,
removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has
been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable op- C
portunity of being heard in respect of the charges. Article 311(2) thus
imposes a fetter on the power of the President or the Governor to
Lietcrrnine the tenure of a civil servant by the exercise of pleasure.
Tutsi Ram case concerned with the exclusion of Article 31 i(2) by
reason of second proviso thereunder. We are also concerned with the D
exclusion of Article 31 i(.:), if not by second proviso but by the nature
of post held by the respondent. We have earlier said that the respon-
dent is not entitled to protection of Article 311(2), since he occupied
the post drawing his salary from the Defence-Estimates. That being
the position, the exclusionary effect of Article 3J 1(2) deprives him the
protection which he is otherwise entitled to. In other words, there is no E
fetter in the exercise of the pleasure of the President or the Governor.

It was, however, argued for the respondent that 1965 Rules are
applicable to the respondent, first, on the ground that Rule 3(1)
thereof itself provides that it.would be applicable, and second, that the
Rules were framed by the President to control his own pleasure F
doctrine, and therefore, cannot be excluded. This contention, in our
opinion, is basically faulty. The 1965 Rules among others, provide
procedure for imposing the three major penalties that are set out
under Article 311(2). When Article 311(2) itself stands excluded and
the protection thereunder is withdrawn there is little that one could do
under the 1965 Rules in favour of the respondent. The said Rules G
cannot independently play any part' since the rule making power under
Article 309 is subject to Article 311. This would be the legal and logical
conclusion.

The next contention urged for the respondent depends upon the
admission made by the appellants before the High Court. The appel- H
'

1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A Iants seem to have admitted before the High Court that the 1965 Rules
would be applicable to the respondent. Relying on this admission, it
was argued before us that the decree under appeal should not be set
aside. The poverty of the respondent and the long drawn litigation by
which the respondent has suffered immea~urably were also high-
lighted.
B
We gave our anxious consideration to this part of the submission.
It is true that the parties appear to have proceeded before the High
Court, that the 1965 Rules would be attracted to the case of respondent.
It might be on a wrong assumption of law. The appellants cannot be
es topped to contend to the contrary. They are not bound by such
c wrong assumption of law. Nor it could be taken advantage of by the
respondent. But the submission made before us about the poverty of
the respondent and the long drawn litigation seems to be appealing·. It
is a plus point in his favour under equity. This Court, while granting
special leave has imposed a condition on the appellants that they will
bear the cost of the respondent in any event. That was evidently
D because of the need to have the law clarified and inability of the
respondent to come up to this Court. There cannot be any dispute
about the poverty surrounding him. He has instituted the suit as an
indigent person. There is yet another aspect. When the respondent
commenced the litigation and continued up to the High Court, the law
on the question was nebulous. It was only thereafter an authoritative
E pronouncement was made by this Court with regard to the impact of
Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 on the pleasure doctrine
under Article 310(1). These facts and circumstances therefore call for
a sympathetic consideration of the case of respondent. This Court will
not 0<-•lY any equitable relief in deserving cases. The case on hand
cannot be lin exception to that rule and indeed, it is eminently a fit
F case. We, therefore, accept the submission made for the respondent
and decline to disturb the decree under appeal.

In the result, the appellants succeed on the question of law, but
the respondent retains the decree in his favour purely on compassion-
ate grounds. The appellants also must pay the cost to the respondent as
G already bound.

A.P.J. ApJ?eal allowed.