All India Defence Employees Federtation And Ors vs Union Of India Thr The Secretary And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010469122025

2026:BHC-AS:44341-DB

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
rajshree
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11710 OF 2025
All India Defence Employees Federation & Ors. ....Petitioners
V/S
Union of India, Through the Secretary & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr.K.P. Anil Kumar i/b Anurag Saxena for the Petitioners.
Mr.Ram Apte, Senior Advocate a/w Harshal Nahata i/b D.P. Singh
for Union of India.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ
DATE : 23RD OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J) :
1 All India Defence Employees’ Federation, a registered
Federation of defence employees in the Defence establishments,
through its Vice President and one Pithabas Banchanidhi
Panigrahi, an employee working in the office of Admiral
Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, have approached this
Court, being aggrieved by the restrictions imposed in Rule 15
(1)(c) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for
short CCS Conduct Rules) and a declaration is sought to the effect
that, they shall not be made applicable to the employees of the
Government, in they becoming office bearer of Employees Co-
operative Societies/ Banks which are covered under the Central
Digitally signed
by RAJSHREE
KISHOR MORE
Date:
2026.10.31
11:26:38 +0530
RAJSHREE
KISHOR
MORE
1/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
Co-operative Societies Act and respective State Governments Co-
operative Societies Act and as such they shall not be required to
seek permission of the employer, to become an office bearer of
such Employees Co-operative Societies/Banks.
Another declaration is sought, that imposing a restriction
upon a Government servant in holding elective office in any
body, whether incorporated or not, for a period of two terms or for
a period of 5 years, whichever occurs earlier be declared as
unconstitutional.
Based upon the facts, a writ of mandamus/ appropriate writ
is also prayed for directing Respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to insist
upon the employees working in the department to take
permission under Rule 15 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, to be the
members/office bearer of the Employees Co-operative Societies/
Banks, which are covered under the Central Co-operative
Societies Act and that their tenure shall not be restricted.
A relief is also sought to the effect to allow the office bearer
i.e. in particular Petitioner No.2, to contest the election for the
post of Director/Honorary Secretary, subject to the outcome of
the Petition. Further, the Office Memorandum dated 27/02/2020
and the impugned order dated 18/08/2022 are also prayed to be
quashed and set aside, being unsustainable in law.
2 We have heard the learned counsel Mr. K.P. Anil Kumar for
the Petitioners and the learned senior counsel Mr.Ram Apte,
representing Union of India.
While the notice was issued in the Petition on 07/10/2025,
the Court refused to grant ex-parte ad-interim order and declared
2/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
that if the elections are held, then the same shall be subject to
the result of the Petition.
Upon the pleadings being completed, with the consent of the
respective counsel, we issue ‘Rule’, which is made returnable
forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final hearing at the
stage of admission.
1
3 In Jyoti Basu & Ors. vs. Debi Ghosal & Ors. , the Apex Court
declared thus :-
“A right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is,
anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a common law
right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be
elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute, there
is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an
election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to
statutory limitation.”
The present Petition involves a right to stand for an election
and the right to be elected and this right is claimed by the
members of Petitioner No.1, which is an All India Defence
Employees Federation, working in Defence establishments and
its affiliated Unions are spread all over the country in the
Defence establishments. It is a registered Federation established
in the year 1953 and recognized by the Government of India.
Petitioner No.2 Pithabas Banchanidhi Panigrahi is an office
bearer of the Federation, holding the post of Chargeman, Group
Non Gazetted ‘B’, in the office of Admiral Superintendent, Naval
Dockyard, Mumbai.
The Petitioners seek to exercise their right of an elected
member of Naval Dockyard Co-operative Bank (NDCB) which is
1 (1982)1 SCC 691
3/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
under the regulatory control of the Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Maharashtra State and situated within the premises of
Naval Dockyard. It is the claim of the Petitioners that NDCB came
into existence in the year 1931 and since the very inception, all
the Directors of the Board have been appointed through elections
and as per our directions, the model bye-laws of NDCB are placed
before us, which reflect that “The Naval Dockyard Co-operative
Bank Ltd.” is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960 vide registration No.6969 dated
24/02/1931 and the Bank has been granted license by RBI to
carry on banking business by issuing a license on 10/10/1984.
As per the bye-laws the area of operation of the Bank is
confined to the entire State of Maharashtra/Western Naval
Command.
The perusal of the bye-laws would disclose that the objects
of the Bank are highlighted and principle amongst its various
objects, is the object to ensure the security of the depositors of
the Bank and to promote the interest of all its members to attain
their social and economic betterment through self help and
mutual aid in accordance with the co-operative principles,
discharge its functions. The major functions of the Bank as per
bye-laws include the following :-
“i)To encourage thrift, self help and mutual co-operation amongst the
members
ii) To accept deposits of money from the public as well as members,
repayable on demand or otherwise and withdrawable by cheque, draft,
and order or otherwise for the purpose of lending or investment.
iii) To borrow or raise money.
iv) To tend or to advance fund based or non fund based facility either
with or without security to members and others as permitted by the
Registrar/Reserve Bank of India.
v) To draw make, accept, co accept, discount, buy, sell, collect and deal
4/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
in bills of exchange, hundies, promissory notes, coupons, drafts, bills of
lading, railway receipts, warrants, certificates, scripts and other
instruments and other securities Whether transferable or negotiable or
not.
vi) To grant and to issue letter of credit, travelers cheques and circular
notes.
vii) To buy and sell Gold, Silver, Bullion and other species and foreign
exchange including foreign Bank notes and to undertake foreign
exchange business with the permission of Reserve Bank of India.
viii) To acquire, to hold, to issue on commission, to underwrite and to
deal in stocks, funds, shares, debentures, debenture stock, bonds,
obligations, securities and investment of all kinds.”
In addition to the aforesaid, the NDCB also exercises
functions of a normal Bank like providing safe deposit vaults,
negotiate loans and advances, transact every kind of guarantee
and indemnity business, to manage, sell and realize any property
that may come into the possession of the Bank for satisfaction of
any of its claims, to prepare and to finance schemes for
betterment of financial condition of the members etc.
4 What is pertinent to note is the relevant clause in the bye-
laws relating to membership as it contemplate the following
categories of members :-
a) Ordinary Members
i) Active Member ii) Non Active Members.
b) Associate Members
c) Nominal Members.
Under the caption ‘Ordinary Member’, it is prescribed that
an individual may be admitted as a Member if (a) He has put in a
permanent regular continuous service for one year and above as a
civilian employee in the Indian Navy (b) If he is an adult and
competent to contract; (c) If he has subscribed to a fully paid
for at least 10 shares of Rs.100/- each of the Bank and his
5/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
application has been duly approved by the Board of Directors’ (d)
If he has paid entrance fees of Rs.100/-.
No individual as referred to above can be admitted as a
member unless he has preferred a written application and has
undertaken to abide by the existing as well as subsequent
provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and
Rules and Bye-Laws of the Bank, as amended from time to time.
Upon being admitted to the Membership, a member is
entitled to exercise such rights as are provided in the Act, Rules
and Bye-laws and he is duty bound to attend the meetings as
prescribed and utilize minimum level of service set out by the
Bye-laws, with consequences being provided if he fails to abide by
the same. Only an active member has one vote irrespective of
the number of shares and he shall vote in person in the elections
to the General Body of the Bank, which shall consist of the
ordinary members. The final authority of the Bank vest in the
General Body, whereas, the Executive Management of the Bank
shall vest in the Board of Directors.
Specific criteria is set out for being eligible to be elected to
the Board of Directors and bye-laws specify the qualifications
required for a person to be elected as the President, Vice
President or Honorary Secretary/ Honorary Treasurer and
functions to be discharged by the Board of Directors are also
prescribed.
5 The grievance raised in the Petition is in relation to the
participation of members of Petitioner No.1, Federation, and
Government servants like Petitioner No.2 and in specific his own
6/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
individual grievance revolves around the fetters imposed upon
his participation in the elections.
The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances & Pensions, on 27/02/2020, with regard to the
subject, ‘Sanction for holding an elective office under Rule 15(1)
(c) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964’ modified its earlier policy
contained in Office Memorandum dated 05/08/2019 and amended
paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 to the following effect :-
“3. The policy on fixing an upper limit of the number of years for which
Government servants can hold elective office in any body in their entire
career has been reviewed and it has been decided that a Government
servant may be allowed to hold elective office in any body, whether
incorporated or not, for period of two terms or for a period of 5 years,
whichever is earlier, for which prior sanction would be required when a
Government servant contests an election in such body, as per existing
rules.
4. It is, therefore, necessary for the Competent Authority to keep in
mind all the relevant factors while granting permission under Rule
15(1)(c) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In cases where the Government
servants have assumed charge of elected posts prior to the issuing of
O.M. dated 5.08.2019, they may be allowed to complete the full period
of their current tenure, except in cases where there are charges of
corruption and adverse audit paras etc."
The Ministries, Departments and Offices were requested to
bring the above instructions to the notice of all administrative
authorities under their control.
This resulted into a communication issued on 18/08/2022
by the Directorate of Civilian Personnel Services, Integrated HQ
of Ministry of Defence (Navy) addressed to the Flag Officer
Commanding in Chief, HQ Western Naval Command as well as
other Commanding Officers, in which it is stated thus :-
7/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
“2. Instances have come to notice wherein field Units/Establishments
under IHQ-MoD(Navy) are not complying with Rule 15(1)(C) of CCS
(Conduct) Rules 1984 regarding holding an elective office. As per CCS
(Conduct) Rules 1964 Govt. employee is not permitted to participate in
election as candidate without prior sanction from the Govt and this rule
applies to any kind of election whether it is for Society registered under
Societies Registration Act 1860 or Co-operative Societies registered
under Co-operative Society Act 1912. If a Govt servant violates this
rule, his election would be treated illegal and he would have to
relinquish his elected post.
3. The matter has been examined in view of Rules 15(1) (C) of CCS
(Conduct) Rule 1964 and DoP&T OM dated 05 Aug 2019 & 27 Feb 2020
and it is clarified that a Govt employee is not permitted to take part in
the election as candidate without prior sanction from the Govt. The
DoP&T OM dated 27 Feb 2020 also stipulates that a Govt servant may
be allowed to hold an elective office in any Body whether incorporated
or not for a period of two terms or 05 years whichever is earlier for
which prior sanction would be required from Competent Authority.
4. In view of the above, you are requested to implement Rule 15(1)(C )
of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 and DoP&T OM dated 27 Feb 2020 in
letter and spirit in all the field Units/Establishments.
6 Petitioner No.1, Federation, on 24/10/2023, with reference
nd
to the 62 meeting of the Standing Committee of National Council
(JCM) held on 20/09/2023, under the Chairpersonship of
Secretary DoP&T, addressed a communication to the Chief of
Personnel, Integrated Headquarters of MOD (Navy), as regards
misinterpretation of the DoP&T instructions by Western Naval
Command on the tenure of naval civilian employees holding the
post of directors in the Employees' Co-operative Society/Bank.
nd
With reference to the agenda point in the 62 meeting of the
Standing Committee of the National Council, a grievance was
made that the the Naval authorities, Mumbai, were
misinterpreting the instructions and, therefore, necessary
clarification may be issued as regards Employees of Co-operative
Societies/ Banks and a request was made that they should be
taken out of the purview of Rule 15(1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules
8/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
and it was agreed that the matter will be examined by the
Department of Personnel and Training, and, therefore, a request
was made that no punitive action shall be taken on the show-
cause notices issued to the employees who are directors in the
Naval Employees' Co-operative Bank.
As far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, he functioned as
Honorary Secretary for a period of 2015-2022 and 2022 onwards,
but he was placed under suspension from 05/03/2024 till
26/05/2025, and was issued a charge memorandum on
03/04/2024 by the Admiral Superintendent, Mumbai. Petitioner
No.2 faced two fold charge; a) Not taking permission/sanction to
contest the election for Board of Directors of Naval Dockyard
Cooperative Bank and 2) Holding the elective office and NDCB
beyond the prescribed timeline, which was in contravention of
Dop&T Office Memorandum dated 27/02/2020.
He was placed under suspension for acting in violation of
Rule 15(1)(C) of CCS (Conduct) Rules and for non-adherence of
senior officers' order for resigning from the elective post in NDCB,
which he was holding in violation of DoP&T order.
The suspension order of 05/03/2024, by the Admiral
Superintendent exercised the power conferred by sub-rule 10
(1a), of the Central Civil Service (Classification) Control and
Appeal Rules 1965. However, the Secretary, National Council
(Staff side), joint consultative machinery for central government
employees, New Delhi, by letter dated 06/03/2024, made a
request to the Honorable Defense Minister, Government of India,
for revocation of his suspension, as it was alleged that the issuing
authority had adopted a vindictive approach, and it was
9/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
nd
submitted that in the 62 meeting of the Standing Committee of
National Council held on 20/09/2023, it was decided that DoP&T
will examine the matter and take a decision in that regard, but
while the matter was under active consideration of the
Government of India, the suspension order was issued.
However, it is the claim of the Petitioner No.2 that he was
compelled to resign from the post of Honorary Secretary and the
Board of Directors of NDCB, and he submitted his resignation on
27/02/2025, and his resignation was approved, but he was
requested to continue to function till the new Secretary was
elected.
7 It is in this background facts, we are called upon to
appreciate the submissions, mainly focusing upon the
fundamental right guaranteed under 19(1)(c) of the Constitution
i.e. Right to form associations or unions or cooperative societies.
Article 43(b) of the Constitution, is also pressed into
service as it provides that the States shall enjoin to promote
voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic
control, and professional management of cooperative societies.
Submitting that the promotion of cooperative societies as a
directive principle of state policy, and therefore State is under an
imperative mandate to promote cooperative societies, and,
therefore any steps taken by the State shall ensure, to satisfy the
requirements of Article 43(b) with its focus on encouraging
autonomous functioning and democratic control.
8 It is urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners
10/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
Mr.Anil Kumar, that the election to the Managing Committee of
NDCB, aim to administer the society and it is submitted that, in
fact, the members of the Managing Committee of a Cooperative
Society hold a key position where they are imposed with the
responsibility of taking decisions, and longer experience gained
by such person will be beneficial for the society.
It is contended that Co-operative societies being institutions
functioning autonomously, if the General body of a Society feels
that long continuance of Members in the Managing Committee
would adversely affect the management and affairs of the Society,
the General body can incorporate such conditions in the bye-laws
of the society but when State imposes such restraint, it would
indeed amount to interference with autonomy of the Societies and
interference with the right of the General body of a Society to
elect best among its Members to the Managing Committee.
Mr. Anil Kumar would submit that the Societies are
expected to function in a democratic manner and the term
"democratic control" appearing in Article 43-B does not mean that
State shall control the Societies. It contemplates that Societies
should be functioning in a democratic manner and the State shall
strive to ensure that the Societies are allowed to run in a
democratic fashion. When the Executive makes arbitrary rules
regulating the conditions and qualifications for being elected to
the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society, that would
indeed be an affront to the right of the members of the Society to
run the Society in a democratic manner, is his contention.
It is also the submission advanced that as far as private
bodies/ organizations are concerned, right to contest an election
11/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
will be governed by their own rules, and even if the functioning of
such bodies is regulated by Government through statutes, the
State cannot interfere with democratic functioning of such bodies,
imposing arbitrary conditions for eligibility to contest an election.
According to him, there cannot be a legal assumption or
invariable rule that members being elected to the Managing
Committee of a Co-operative Society would develop vested
interest and they will become incompetent to have their say in the
management and affairs of Co-operative Society, as such restraint
is not existing in any other democratic institutions like
Parliament/ State Legislatures or even in Local Self Government
Institutions governed by Panchayat Raj Act. There cannot be a
blanket assumption that members being elected to Managing
Committee repeatedly and continuously will act to the detriment
of the Societies and even if there is likelihood of developing
vesting interest, being a democratically functioning institution, it
is for the Members/General Body of a Co-operative Society to
address such issues.
9 The above contentions advanced, receive strong contest at
the end of Respondents.
Petitioner No.2, though an office bearer of the Federation is
working on the post of Chargeman of Group Non-Gazetted ‘B’ in
the office of Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Mumbai,
which is a Government of India establishment. As a Chargeman,
he has an important role to play in the shipbuilding trade of the
Indian Navy, which, according to the Respondent, is a critical and
specialised technical job from the angle of war readiness.
12/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
According to the Admiral Superintendent, who has filed an
Affidavit through Captain John Joseph, the Deputy General
Manager, HRD, who state that Petitioner No. 2 is entrusted with
technical supervision and execution of highly specialised work
related to overhaul and maintenance of warships of the Indian
Navy and alongwith other Chargemen, he is responsible for
ensuring strict compliance with technical standards, safety
protocols, and quality control measures in highly regulated and
sensitive environments. It is specifically urged before us that the
technical complexity, level of responsibility, and potential impact
of failure in the trade of shipbuilding are far greater and have
direct bearing on the security and defence preparedness of the
Nation.
10 It is not in dispute that the services of Petitioner No. 2 are
governed by the CCS Rules which include the Conduct Rules of
1964. The said rules set out the norms applicable to the persons
appointed by the Government to any civil service or post in
connection with the affairs of the Union, and include civilians in
defence services.
As per Rule 3 of the CCS(Conduct)Rules, 1964, every
Government servant is under an obligation to maintain devotion
to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government
servant, and to maintain political neutrality. He is responsible for
maintaining accountability and transparency and maintaining
discipline in the discharge of duties, with a highest degree of
professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities.
Rule 15 of the Rules of 1964 impose a restriction on a
13/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
Government servant to do certain acts without the the previous
sanction of the Government and this includes ‘(c) hold an elective
office, or canvass for a candidate or candidates for an elective
office in any body, whether incorporated or not’. This, however, is
subject to a proviso, that no previous permission shall be
necessary when the Government servant participates in a
programme produced or commissioned by Government media in
his official capacity.
This restriction is relaxed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15,
when it is permissible for a Government servant, without
previous sanction of the Government, to ‘(e) take part in the
registration, promotion or management (not involving the
holding of elective office) of a co-operative society substantially
for the benefit of Government Servants, registered under the Co-
operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or any other law for the
time being in force.’
This Rule is also accompanied with a proviso, which reads
thus :-
“(i) he shall discontinue taking part in such activities, if so directed by
the Government; and
(ii) in a case falling under clause (d) or clause (e) of this sub-rule, his
official duties shall not suffer thereby and he shall, within a period of
one month of his taking part in such activity, report to the Government
giving details of the nature of his participation.”
11 It cannot be disputed that an employee who is in
Government service and in the present case, in the service of the
Union of India/Central Government, his conduct shall be governed
by the Rules of 1964 and in particular, when Petitioner No. 2 is an
employee of a Defence organisation and occupy a far more vital ,
14/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
specialised and indispensable position in terms of technical
contribution in national defence. There cannot be any cavil
opinion on the fact that the Government, whether State
Government or Central Government, is entitled to determine the
terms and conditions subject to which duties shall be discharged
by its employees. It is open for the employer to ensure that the
discipline as expected to the employer is followed and
particularly when it is a disciplined force like the Defence.
12 It is in the background of this aspect, viz, that an employer
is entitled to determine the conduct of its employees with an
object of maintaining discipline, we must examine the case of
Petitioner No.1, which is All India Defence Employees Federation
i.e. of its members and Petitioner No. 2 in specific. What is
claimed by the Petitioners is, that the imposition of restrictions
imposed by the CCS Conduct Rules, and further by the directions
issued by the DoP&T in regards to Rule 15(1)(c), shall not be
made applicable to the members of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner
No. 2.
We have already referred to Rule 15(1)(c) of CCS (Conduct)
Rules, which must be read along with the instructions issued by
the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. By
issuing Office Memorandum on 05/08/2019, in furtherance of
Rule 15(1)(c) of the CCS Rules, which prescribed that no
Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of
the Government, hold an elective office in any body, whether
incorporated or not, with reference to the earlier Office
15/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
Memorandum, which has stipulated that no Government servant
shall be allowed to hold elective office in any sports, association/
federation for a term more than four years, or for one term which
should be less. It is indicated that the focus of this stipulation,
being clearly highlighted therein, that the entire time of the
Government servant should be available to the Government, and
that no activities unconnected with his or her official duties
should be allowed to interfere with the efficient discharge of such
duties, and, therefore, the Ministries were requested to ensure
that the participation of Government servants in the activities of
cooperative societies shall conform to the Office Memorandum
and shall in no way interfere with the discharge of their official
duties.
The Office Memorandum dated 05/08/2019, which has not
been placed on record but has been extensively referred to in the
Division Bench Judgment of this Court in National Federation of
Atomic Energy Employees (NFAEE) on which the Petitioners
have placed strong reliance, highlighted as below :-
“2. Instances have come to notice where Government servants
continue to hold elective offices in various capacities for unduly long
periods. In some cases, where bye-laws of these bodies place
restrictions on the number of consecutive terms a person may hold an
office, Government servants are reported to have either got themselves
re-elected after a gap or have got a family member/ close relative
elected as a surrogate in order to keep control of such bodies. In such
cases, Government servants may not be bestowing adequate attention
upon their official duties and, as a result, an apprehension may arise
that such Government servants also develop vested interests,
particularly if the body is involved in commercial activities, directly or
indirectly”.
It is in the wake of the aforesaid, the policy as regards
fixing of the upper limit of number of years for which a
16/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
Government servant could hold elective office in a body came to
be reviewed and it was also indicated that the sanction which
has been granted, shall be subject to review from time to time,
and permissions granted earlier are entitled to be revoked.
13 This memorandum is followed by an Office Memorandum
dated 27/02/2020, substituting the clause regarding the fixing of
the upper limit of the number of years when the Government
servant can hold elective office and the earlier period was
substituted by ‘for a period of two terms or a period of five years’,
whichever is earlier.
It is in furtherance of this Office Memorandum, the
communication dated 18/08/2022 was issued to the Flag Officer
Commanding-in-Chief, indicating that there was no compliance of
Rule 15(1)(c) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, regarding
holding of an elective office, which did not permit an employee to
participate in an election as a candidate without the prior
sanction of the Government. It was claimed that the rule was
applicable to any kind of election, whether it was for a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act or a Cooperative
Societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912. It
was also indicated that if a Government servant violate the rule,
the election should be treated as illegal and he would have to
relinquish his elective post.
With reference to the Office Memorandum dated
27/02/2020, it was also made clear that a Government servant
may be allowed to hold an elective office in a body, whether
incorporated or not, for a period of two terms or five years,
17/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
whichever is earlier, for which prior sanction would be required
by the Competent Authority.
14 It is this restriction, which is called into question by the
Petitioners, by urging that it is violating their right to form an
Association, with special emphasis on Article 19(1)(c), under
which all citizens are conferred a right to form Associations or
Unions or Cooperative Societies. The stand adopted by the
Petitioners is that, since Article 19(1)(c) guarantees this
freedom, and it being a fundamental right, any restriction upon
the exercise of this right cannot be sustained.
It may be true that Part IX-B was introduced into the
Constitution of India by the 97th Amendment, with effect from
15/02/2012, in respect of Cooperative Societies, by incorporating
Article 243-ZH to Article 243-ZT, similarly an amendment is also
effected in Article 19(1)(c) where the words “cooperative
societies” are inserted, thus recognizing the right to form
associations and the right to form cooperative societies as a
fundamental right.
In any case, no fundamental rights are absolute, and they
can be subjected to reasonable restrictions, but before us, the
first question for consideration is whether permitting elections to
be contested with prior permission of the employer i.e. the
Central Government, is an unreasonable restriction and whether
it create any fetter in exercise of right to form a ‘Cooperative
Society/Association’.
15 Article 309 of the Constitution, empowers the appropriate
18/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service
of persons appointed to public services and post in connection
with the affairs of Union or of any State. It is also competent for
the President or such person as he may direct in connection with
the services and post, in connection with affairs of Union and for
the Government or State or such persons as he may direct in case
of services and post in connection with the affairs of the State to
make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service
of persons appointed to such services.
In exercise of the power conferred by proviso to Article 309,
the President has made the rules governing the conditions of the
service of the employees of Central Government in form of Civil
Services Rules.
The CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which govern the conduct of
the Government servants clearly contemplate thus :-
15. Private trade or employment – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-
rule (2), no Government servant shall, except with the previous
sanction of the Government -
(a) engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business, or
(b) negotiate for, or undertake, any other employment, or
(c) hold an elective office, or canvass for a candidate or candidates for
an elective office in any body, whether incorporated or not, or
(d) canvass in support to any business of insuance agency, commission
agency, etc. owned or managed by any member of his family, or
(e) take part except in the discharge of his official duties, in the
registration, promotion or management of any bank or other company
registered or required to be registered, under the Companies Act, 1956
(1 of 1956) or any other law for the time being in force, or of any co-
operative society for commercial purposes.
(f) participate in or associate himself in any manner in the making of -
(i) a sponsored medial (radio or television) programme; or
(ii)a media programme commissioned by Government media but
produced by a private agency; or
(iii)a privately produced media programme including video magazine :
Provided that no previous permission shall be necessary in case where
the Government servant participates in a programme produced or
commissioned by Government media in his official capacity.”
19/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
However, it is in those contingencies set out in sub rule (2),
without seeking previous sanction of the Government, a
Government servant may undertake certain work, which may
include some honorary work of a social or charitable nature, or
may undertake occasional work of a literary, artistic or scientific
character, or participate in sports activities etc.
By prescribing such condition, it has prohibited a
Government servant in engaging himself into any trade or
business or holding an elective office in any body whether
incorporated or not, or taking part in the registration, promotion
or management of any Bank or other company registered or
required to be registered under the Companies Act or any other
law for the time being in force or of any cooperative society for
commercial purposes and it is only permitted to indulge in, with
the previous sanction of the Government.
The intention in introducing this provision is crystal clear;
being to ascertain whether it conflicts any interest of the
Government who is employer and whether because of
participation in such activity, whether a situation would arise
that the Government servant is not able to devote time in
discharge of his official duties. If his time and energy is spent in
other work, it may result in reducing his efficiency, in the
government job as he may feel over burdened and this shall all
be at the cost of the Government, who has engaged him and
assigned him a specific job. It was, therefore, well thought of to
seek prior permission before undertaking any engagement which
include holding of elective office in any body, whether
incorporated or not.
20/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
If the aforesaid is the mandate and condition of
employment, then it definitely deserve strict implementation.
16 It is in furtherance of this objective, an Office Memorandum
was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Personnel/Grievances and Pensions, imposing a restriction on
Government servant holding elective office and setting out
particular term. This condition ensure that the Government
servant shall be available to the Government and no activities
unconnected with his or her official duty shall be allowed to
interfere with efficient discharge of his duties as Government
servant. Since it was noted that Government servants continued
to hold elective office in various capacities for unduly long periods
and in case where the bye-laws of these bodies imposed
restriction on number of consecutive years, a person may hold an
office, the Government servants were reported to have either got
themselves re-elected after a gap or got a close family member
elected to substitute him with an object to perpetuate their
control over such bodies.
It was, therefore, perceived that the Government servants
may get so involved in the affairs of such a body and develop
vested interest that his dedication and devotion to the
Government job became secondary.
17 It is in these circumstances, when the Office Memorandum
dated 05/08/2019 was introduced, it set out that the policy of
fixing of upper limit of the number of years for the Government
servant to hold elective office has been reviewed and it was
21/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
decided that the Government servant may be allowed to hold
elective office in any body, whether incorporated or not, for a
period of two terms or for a period of four years, whichever is
earlier. But even for which prior sanction was required when the
Government servant contested an election.
It was also indicated that the sanction which is granted is
permitted to be reviewed from time to time so as to ascertain
whether there are any charges of corruption, adverse audit paras
etc. and in such a case the Government servant may be directed
to resign from the body immediately and he shall cease to
discharge the function, whether or not his resignation is
accepted.
18 We do not find any illegality in imposing such a condition.
In any case, there is no challenge to Rule 15 (1)(c) of CCS Conduct
Rules before us, but the challenge is posed to the Office
Memorandum reiterating compliance of this stipulation and
imposing a restriction on the length of time for which a
Government Servant would hold such an elective office.
In our view, this in no way has an impact on the right to
form an Association/Cooperative Society. The members
belonging to a particular Government department or number of
Government department or number of Government departments
can come together to form an Association, so as to ventilate their
grievances or increase their collective capacity to act as a Body
with common agenda/objective and which shall cater to the
welfare of its members. It is definitely distinct from a ‘Trade
Union’ which received registration under the Trade Union Act,
22/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
1926 and can be formed by employees working in Public or
Private Sector Undertakings with participation of minimum 7
members. Registration granted in favour of a Trade Union
empowers the Union to function in accordance with the Act of
1926 and its constitution and the members of such Union have a
right to elect the person of their choice, inasmuch as every
member of Trade Union can contest election and employer, per se
will have no say with regard to internal affairs of Trade Union.
However, this is different from the membership of a Society
like the Naval Dockyard Cooperative Bank, which is a Society
registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act with
a confined area of operation comprising of the members who are
in service of Indian Navy and upon securing membership through
share certificate, a member is entitled to enjoy the benefits
accruing on account of the membership of the Bank, which has
the object of ensuring security of its depositors and to promote
the interest of its members to attain the social and economic
betterment through self help and mutual aid.
The Bank functions like any other bank as it accepts
deposits of money, borrow or raise money, lend money/facility,
issue letter of credit, purchase and sale bonds, shares debentures
etc. , but the benefits accrue in favour of its members admitted
as per its bye-laws. Admittedly, the the NDCB is registered under
the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and is necessarily
governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
19 The learned counsel for the Petitioners would place reliance
upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court, when the
23/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
National Federation of Automic Energy employees working in the
department of Automic energy, it being a Federation under the
Trade Unions Act and also recognized Association representing
non gazetted employees had approached the Court. The Petition
raised a grievance about the Office Memorandum dated
05/08/2019 issued by the Government of India imposing certain
restrictions under Rule 15(1)(c) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964,
which clearly contemplated that no Government servant shall,
except with previous sanction of the Government, hold an
elective office or canvass for a candidate or candidates for an
elective office in any body, whether incorporated or not.
The Office Memorandum was subjected to challenge by
submitting that it undermined the rule of democracy and the
right of union members to contest elections to various posts
within the union. It was also urged that the impugned
memorandum imposed a cap on the number of elections to be
contested by a candidate and this impacted its right to fully
participate in the activities of Union.
A reference was also made to the Office Memorandum dated
27/02/2020 deciding the maximum period which a Government
servant could hold an elective office in a body as well as the Office
Memorandum dated 29/08/2022, asking the Government servant
to furnish details of the office held by him in any elective body and
submission of a self declaration certifying the veracity of the
information was also pressed into service.
20 While appreciating the said grievance in the backdrop of
Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, as well as the provisions of
24/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
the Trade Union Act, 1926, it was noted that the issue was
brought before the Court by the Trade Unions registered under
the Trade Union Act, 1926 and the Petition was restricted to the
rights of the members of Trade Union in contesting and getting
elected as office bearers of the Trade Union or any of that internal
societies/bodies.
While pronouncing upon the merits of the contention, the
Division bench of this Court made it clear that the Petition was
being restricted to the Petitioners who are Trade Unions duly
registered under the provisions of Trade Union Act, 1926.
The observation of the Division Bench, therefore, cannot be
made applicable to the Petitioners who are not the members of
the Union, but they intend to contest the election through a
cooperative society registered under the Cooperative Societies
Act. The Division Bench noted its conclusion, which reads thus :
“18. In a country which is administered by the Rule of Democracy
and which is recognized to be one of the largest democracies in the
world, no employer can be permitted to impose restrictions on the
freedom of the members of a Trade Union in either contesting elections
or continuing as Office Bearers of the Trade Union, by elections or
unopposed, or for canvassing someone’s candidature. These issues are
governed only by the Constitution of the Trade Union which is
necessary under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The number of posts
available, the tenure of the post, the eligibility criteria for contesting
such elections, etc. are an integral part of the constitution of the Trade
Union.
19. No employer can create such service rules which would create an
embargo on the terms and conditions or the clauses of the Constitution
of a Trade Union. The freedom to franchise/to contest an election/select
from amongst the contesting candidates/to enjoy a term prescribed
under the constitution of the Union, etc., cannot be curbed by a circular
or Office Memorandum of an Employer.”
21 The learned senior counsel Mr. Apte has placed before us
the decision of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court, in State
25/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
2
of Kerala vs. Joe Thomas & Ors. which has revered the decision
of the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court in case of Babu
Korah vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (Writ Petition(C) No.21368 of
2024.
The Division Bench while deciding the Intra court appeals
preferred by State of Kerala against the Judgment of Single
Bench which raised a challenge to the amendment in the Kerala
Cooperative Societies Act No.9 of 2024 by inserting Section
14AA Sections 28(2A), 32, 33, 34A, 56, 57E and it struck down
amendment in sub section 2A of section 28. The Division Bench
focused upon the introduction of sub section 2A of Section 28 ,
and the observation reads as below :-
“2. Thus we are only confined to the portion of the order starting from
paragraphs 36 to 56 of the judgment under challenge pertaining to the
findings of the Single Bench on the amendment introduced by sub
Section 2A of Section 28 of the Act. The amendment caused by
introduction of sub Section 2A of Section 28 inserted by Act No. 9 of
2024 reads as under:
2A) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act,
rules or in the bye-laws of a credit society, no member of the Committee
of a society shall be eligible for election to the Committee for more than
three consecutive terms, irrespective of whether the term is in full or
in part.
Explanation For the purpose of this sub-section, "credit society" means
the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited, Primary Agricultural
Credit Societies, Service Co-operative Banks, Regional Co-operative
Banks, Rural Banks, Farmer's Service Co-operative Banks, Urban Co-
operative Banks, The Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural
Development Bank Limited, Primary Co-operative Agricultural and
Rural Development Bank, Urban Co-operative Societies, Agricultural
Improvement Co-operative Societies, Employees Credit Societies, Rural
Cooperative Societies, Primary Housing Co-operative Societies and
Kerala State Housing Federation.
3. The aforementioned amendment reveals that no member of the
Committee of the Society shall be eligible for election to the Committee
for more than three consecutive terms, irrespective of whether the
term is in full or in part. The said amendment as per the explanation
only relates to the credit societies indulging into extending the facility
2 2025 SC ONLIne Ker 2507
26/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
of loan. The credit societies which would mean the Kerala State Co-
operative Bank Limited, Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, Service
Co-operative Banks, Regional Co-operative Banks, Rural Banks,
Farmer's Service Co-operative banks, Urban Co-operative Banks, the
Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank
Limited, Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development
Bank, Urban Cooperative Societies, Agricultural Improvement Co-
operative Societies, Employees Credit Societies, Rural Co-operative
Societies, Primary Housing Co-operative Societies and Kerala State
Housing Federation.”
22 The aforesaid amendment was considered resulting into a
prohibition being imposed on a member of the committee of the
society to be eligible for election to the committee for more than
3 consecutive terms irrespective whether the term is in full or
part. Noting that the amendment in terms of the Explanation
only related to the credit societies, indulging into extending
facility of loan which included the Kerala State Co-operative
Bank Ltd. amongst other entities.
th
With reference to the 97 Amendment introduced in the
Constitution and in specific the amendment caused in Article 19,
by extending the “right to form associations or unions by
including co-operative societies”, it is observed by the Division
Bench that the question that arose for consideration was
‘whether right to contest an election is a fundamental right or
common law right?’
It referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Javed vs.
3
State of Haryana , wherein it was held that right to elect, though
fundamental but is, anomalously enough to be neither a
fundamental right nor a common law right, but it received a
recognition as a pure and simple, statutory right i.e. the right to
3 (2003) 8 SCC 369
27/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
be elected and the right to dispute an election, being subject to
statutory limitation.
23 It is in this background, a challenge to the amendment
clause in Section 28(2A) of the Act received consideration from
the Division Bench and the argument canvassed on behalf of the
Appellant-State was noted to the effect that the Single Judge has
grossly erred in concluding that the unfettered right to contest
election to the Committee of a credit society without any term
restriction was a sine qua non for ensuring the autonomy and
democratic control of the society. It was also urged that the
Single Judge overlooked the common feature of a credit society
that the society raised funds and give loans to the members of all
kind of activities to be undertaken by the societies, which are
mainly handling cash of depositors of the society concerned. The
argument was also canvassed that the finding rendered that the
management did not impinge upon fundamental right guaranteed
under part 3 of the Constitution, was an erroneous finding.
It is in light of the rival contentions advanced, the Division
Bench noted thus :-
“17. In order to prevent the misuse of the power the legislature in the
wisdom caused an amendment by introduction of sub Section 2A of
Section 28 Act barring a member of Society to contest the election if he
or she had been the member of the Society for three terms with an aim
to eliminate unhealthy practice which is resultant of abnormal long
continuance of a particular person in the same office. We cannot remain
unmindful of the fact that the credit Societies are dealing with the
money matters with the members including the nominated members
who are not having voting rights. The practice of the person holding the
same post in the managing committee for a longer period has in the
past adversely affected the working of the Society. It is in that
background, a reasonable restriction disqualifying the members from
contesting the election who have been elected member of Society for
more than three years. On the basis of some enquiry, it is a matter of
28/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
record that the same very managing committee members an office
bearers are continuing in the administration for a pretty long period in
the committee and large scale irregularities have been committed.”
22. The pith and substance of the findings extracted above, leaves no
manner of doubt that the right to stand as a candidate and contest
election is not a common law right but a special right created by a
statute and can be only exercised on the conditions laid down by the
statute. It is not a fundamental right as observed by the Single Bench
much less to be violative of directive principles as per Article 43B of
the Constitution of India, PART IV, Directive Principles of State Policy.
These two factors have not been pondered while striking down the
amendment in the judgment under challenge. The whole focus had been
only on the autonomy of the Society. Meaning thereby, the Society, in
view of the autonomy granted will be like a plant 'touch me not' which is
not the main purpose and object of the introduction of amendment of
the Constitution of India. No reasoning or rational has been assigned
while rendering a finding in paragraph 55 that the election of the
managing committee of any Society for the 4th consecutive term will
not develop any vested right. In case, the findings in the said judgment
under challenge is permitted to sustain, it will render unfettered and
unbridled powers to the member of the Society to indulge into
misappropriation and will be against the principles of administrative
law. The ratio of decidendi culled out in the judgments cited on behalf of
the respondents was basically on account of the exclusion of certain
diary and milk Co-operative Societies from the provisions of the
Andhrapradesh Co-operative Society and therefore definitely would be
violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The right to
contest, for the sake of repetition is not a fundamental right but right
from the statute."
As an upshot of findings, we set aside the findings of the learned
Single Judge from Paragraphs 36 to 56, viz-a-viz, strikign down the
provisions of Section 28(2A) of the Act. Consequently, all Writ Appeals
are allowed.”
It is in the wake of the aforesaid finding, the decision of the
learned Single Judge has been set aside and the Writ Petitions
filed by the State of Kerala were allowed.
24 Once we accept the proposition that right to contest
election is not a fundamental right , nor it is a common law right,
but if it is a statutory, definitely it can be subjected to
restrictions imposed by the Statute which shall include the
29/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
imposition of restrictions upon a Government servant as regards
to his conduct, as the Government is entitled to expect the
participation of its employees with all dedication and sincerity.
Even though there is a society which is formed for the welfare of
its members and the membership is restricted to a particular
organization, what the Government expect is seeking permission,
before a person who is its employee contest election to the
managing committee of the said society. Similarly, it can also
impose a restriction in the number of years/tenure for which the
elected person shall continue to hold the office as he may develop
vested interest in the functioning of the society, cooperative
society/ bank and this may have a detrimental effect upon his
functioning as a Government servant.
As far as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court is
concerned, it is distinguishable on the ground that what was in
question was the membership of trade union registered against
the Trade Unions Act and in any case the Division Bench of this
Court in National Federation of Automic Energy Employees
(NFAEE) made it clear that the Petition was restricted to the
Petitioners who are Trade Unions, duly registered under the
provisions of Trade Union Act, 1926, and as there was no inbuilt
embargo or restriction imposed on the number of terms to be
enjoyed by an elected office bearer.

25 Petitioner No.1, which is a Federation of affiliated unions in
the defence establishment cannot seek a general relief as the
Federation itself has no right, but since Petitioner No.2 is the
office bearer of Petitioner No.1, Federation, who was subjected to
30/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
a restriction to the effect that he shall take prior permission of his
employer before he contest the election and he faced disciplinary
proceedings, because he did not seek prior permission before he
contested the election. He faced a charge of non adherence to the
DoP&T order and Rule 15(1)(c) of the Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964, as he continued to hold the elective office
in the Naval Dockyard Cooperative Bank, without seeking prior
permission. In any case, Petitioner No.2 chose to resign from the
Board of Director of NDCB, which resulted in closure of the
disciplinary proceedings.
We do not find merit in the contention advanced on behalf
of the Petitioners that it is an indefeasible right of the members
of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 as an employee to contest
the elections to a society, which work in the interest of its
members and according to us that do not change the context of
the embargo as the Office Memorandum issued by the DOP&T
Department had made it clear that it shall apply to the societies
registered under the Cooperative Societies Act as well as States
Cooperative Societies and also to the Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act and to participate in the elective
process adopted by the said society/ bank, the sanction from
the Government was necessary.
Though the learned counsel for the Petitioners has urged
before us that Petitioner No.2 was refused the permission though
several other similarly situated employees were permitted to
contest the election, we do not intend to get into the factual aspect
of the matter and if the discretion is vested in the employer to
permit contest of election in case of a particular candidate/
31/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
employee, but refuse the same in respect of another employee,
unless and until malafides are established, we will not accept the
submission that it violate Article 14.
26 By way of a rejoinder filed by the Respondent, it is brought
on record that the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Mumbai (I) vide its letter dated 15/06/2023 had also
intimated that some of the directors of NDCB are not eligible to
hold the post of Directors as per the Service Rules and requested
an action to be taken and this included the name of Shri P. B.
Panigrahi , holding the post of Secretary. Subsequent to this
aspect being brought to the notice, all other six members
resigned from their post, but Petitioner No.2 willfully retained his
pose, blatantly disobeying the directives and this according to the
Respondent is highly detrimental to the disciplined post like
Navy. This resulted into the suspension on 05/03/2025, but it
was revoked on 26/05/2025 when Shri P.B. Panigrahi resigned
from the post held by him.
It is made clear by the Respondent that Naval Dockyard has
no role to play with respect to working / operation of NDCB and
the Bank operate on its own for its clients and has well
established branches across Maharashtra. In any case as on
date the issue has come to an end as Petitioner No.2 has resigned
from the administration of NDCB and, therefore, the issue is no
longer alive.
27 Since on consideration of the rival contentions we do not
find any fault in issuance of the directives by the Dop&T on
32/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
18/08/2022, pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated
27/02/2020 issued by the Dop&T, the Government of India, on
consonance with Rule 15(1)(c) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, we
dismiss the Writ Petition.
We also refuse to grant declaration as prayed in prayer
clause (a) to the effect that Rule 15(1)(c) shall not be made
applicable to the Government servants in becoming office bearer
of the employees cooperative society/bank. According to us, the
Rule 15(1)(c) which governs the conduct of a Government
employee, is in conformity with the power conferred under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, as it empower the union
or State to make rules regulating the recruitment and the
conditions of services of persons appointed to such services and
since we do not find imposition of the said condition to be violative
of any of the fundamental rights of its employee we refuse to
entertain either Petitioner No.2 or Petitioner No.1, as a
Federation.
The right to contest election not being a fundamental right,
but a right conferred by the Statute and restriction imposed upon
employee of the Central Government/State Government in the
the wake of the rules governing their service condition,
according to us create a distinct class apart from the class which
is entitled to contest the election to any post and in our view the
classification based on intelligible differentia, as the Government
can restrict its employees from participating in the election and
even there is no complete embargo that is imposed, but the
Government has only regulated the participation of its
employees in the process of election to any body bank and made it
33/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18

J-WP-11710-2025.odt
mandatory to seek its sanction instead of a complete embargo
being imposed.
In any case we do not find that the right to elect is a
fundamental right and, therefore, regulating this right by
formulating appropriate rule, in no way affect the right of the
Petitioners.
28 As far as the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) to
form cooperative societies is concerned, we do not find even this
right to be violated, as Petitioner No.1 and its Members as well as
Petitioner No.2 are not being restricted from forming a
cooperative society, but the election and participation of the
members into its managing committee is regulated in wake of
Rule 15(1)(c) of the CCC (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as well as the
Office Memorandum issued by the Dop&T. Since we are not
satisfied that the right under Article 19(1)(c) has been violated,
we do not deem it appropriate to exercise our writ jurisdiction.
As a result of the aforesaid discussion, finding no merit and
substance in the Petition, we dismiss the Writ Petition.
Rule is discharged.
Pending Interim Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.] [BHARATI DANGRE, J.]
34/34
Uploaded on - 31/10/2026 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 11:41:18
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)