Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA versus M.A. CHOWDHARY

Decided
7 May 1987
Judges listed
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, M.M. DUTT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 424 · 1987 INSC 158
Also cited as
  • AIR 1987 SC 1526 (2 citing judgments)
  • (1987) 4 SCC 112 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N; that is paragraph N of the first opinion that numbers its paragraphs, and another opinion's paragraph N is #op2-para-N, #op3-para-N and so on, by its opinion number.

SUPREME COURT EDITORIAL NOTE: Facts of the case:

p. 425, margin H

The respondent-M.A. Chowdhary was appointed as a Staff .,_ Artist in All India Radio, Bombay under an agreement executed by him with the Director General of All India Radio. The agreement was for three years. On the expiry of three years, the respondent was re-employed and his contract was renewed on yearly basis up to 30th November, 1964. Thereafter 'he was re-employed on a five years' contract.

p. 425, margin H

On November 2, 1967 the Government of India passed an order stating that Staff Artists should be allowed to remain in service upto the age of 55 years. Accordingly, a clause was added to the agreement executed by the respondent, stipulating that the respondent shall remain in service upto December 31, 1985 on which date he was to attain the age of 55 years. Clause 4(v) of tpe agreement, however, provided that the respondent's service will be liable to be terminated on 6 months' notice on either side.

p. 425, margin C

In due course, the respondent was transferred to All India Radio, Varanasi. The Assistant Station Director of All India Radio, Varanasi issued a notice dated 5th October, .1970 intimating the respondent that his services would stand terminated on the expiry of 6 months from 5th October, 1970 in accordance with clause 4(v) of the agreement.

p. 425, margin E

The respondent challenged the validity of the aforesaid termination notice by Writ Petition filed in the High Court of Allahabad. The learned Single Judge held that having regard to the service conditions,

p. 425, margin F

it must be held that the respondent was holding a 'civil post', and as \~'· such was entitled to the prot.ection of Articles 311(2) and 16 of the , onstitution, and that inasmuch as persons junior to him had been · · retained in service, the Appointing Authority in terminating his services had violated Article 16 of the Constitution. On these grounds, the notice of termination of the respondent's service was held bad and quashed.

p. 425, margin F

·-- --

p. 425, margin H

In appeal, the Division Bench held that in view of clauses (1) to ( 4) of the Agreement it is apparent that the Government in consideration of a monthly salary, controls the nature and manner of work assigned to the staff artists, that the Government had complete control over the respondent's work and manner and method of doing the work, which was supervised by the higher authorities, that the relationship between the respondent and the appellant was clearly of a master and servant, and the respondent was, therefore, holding a 'civil post' within the meaning of Article 311( 1) of the Constitution. The authority to terminate the respondent's service on 6 months' notice emanated from the contract but nonetheless it has the effect of violating Artick 311( 1) of the Constitution. It must comply with Article 311(2), otherwise the termination would be a removal from service within the meaning of Article 311(2) and in violation of its provisions. The Division Bench held that the notice of termination was void and rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal of the Union of India.

p. 426, margin A

Opinion 2

Shri A.K. Ganguli, Learned Counsel for the Union of India submits that Article 311 of the Constitution is applicable to the Staff Artists of the All India Radio. We are of the view that the statement made on behalf of the Government represents the true legal position because the Staff Artists are holding civil posts under the Government. In view of the above statement, this appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 258 of 1974 which has also taken the view that article 311 is applicable to those Staff Artists has to be dismissed. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. H.S.K. Appeal dismissed.

p. 426, margin D