Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. V.P. PARUKUTTY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, made on
30,11,1990 in writ Appeal No. 767/86 reversing the judgment
of the learned single judge.
The admitted position is that the respondent was
appointed as an agent the National savings scheme called
Mahila Pradhan kshetriya Bachat Yojana as per order dated
7th August, 1976 under which the respondent was working as
an agent, the agency was terminated by order dated 2.8.1994
on the employee working in the post office (brother) and,
therefore, agency was not validly created. The respondent
challenged that order by filing a writ petition in the High
court sand also the circular dated 5.1.1981 on the basis of
which the said order was passed. The circular was challenged
on the ground that it was discriminatory and arbitrary. The
High court found that the circular was neither
discriminatory nor arbitrary and, therefore, dismissed the
writ petition, Feeling single Judge, the respondent filed an
appeal in the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the
appeal. We are clearly of the opinion that the view taken by
the Division Bench that mere existence of near relations in
the division is not enough for terminating the agency is not
correct, in view of the clear policy of the Government and
the Government instructions directing that no near
relations, namely, legitimate child, or step-child,
father/step-father, mother/step-mother, husband,
brother/step-brother, sister/step-sister, father-in-law,
mohter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, so-in-law,
daughter-in-law, as defined under the scheme, should be
appointed as an agent at the place of work by the post-
master. But as the respondent has been working right from
1976 and as no clear finding has been recorded by the
authority establishing breach of the said instructions, we
do not think that this is a care warranting interference. It
will be open to appellants to have the post-master
transferred to any other place. Though we find that the view
taken by the High Court is not correct, in view of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
peculiar facts of this case, the appointment of respondent
is not disturbed.
The appeal is disposed disposed of accordingly. No
costs.
IN THE MATTER OF :