Tripura Tribal Employees Association vs State of Tripura and Another

D. Biswas, J.—The question involved in this writ petition is whether the impugned Memorandum dated 30.7.1997 (Annexure-15) issued by the Government of Tripura in the Administrative Reforms Department withdrawing the recognition of the Tripura Tribal Employees Association is violative of the provisions of the Tripura Government Services (Recognition of Service Association) Guideline, 1995.

To appreciate the above question, it is necessary to mention here that this High Court in Civil Rule No. 401 of 1995 while dealing with the disputes relating to transfer of office bearers of Tripura Government Employees Association also dealt with the validity of different provisions of the guidelines of 1995 and upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions therein and further held as follows:

20- Before parting a special mention may be noted as far as clause-3 is concerned. We may make a mention that the associations which have already been recognised, under Clause-3 and also under the earlier order of this Court would require the existing service associations for continuance of recognition to fall under the guidelines which have been enunciated in the Guidelines, 1995 and in case those service associations do not fall under these guidelines, the recognition has to be withdrawn as provided under clause-7. As under the scheme of the guidelines any amendment and any change has to be brought to the notice of the Government within a month, we are of the opinion that all the associations which have been recognised before coming into force of the Guidelines, 1995, will be asked to give their details within one month and their cases will be reviewed by the Government within a period of three months in accordance with the provisions of the Guidelines, 1995 and their recognition would further continue after three months only after a fresh order has been passed by the competent authority as to whether they fulfil the Guidelines, 1995, and entitled to be recognized.

For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that clause-4 (b) of the Guidelines, 1995 cannot be said to be either arbitrary or malafide requiring quashing by this Court. The consequential orders passed in pursuance of the Guidelines, 1995 are, therefore, correct. However, it is being made clear that in case recognition to any Association is not granted even after fulfilling the conditions laid down in the Guidelines, 1995, the same would be adjudicated whenever that association independently challenges the same putting forth all the facts of that particular case.

From para 20 above, I find that recognition granted (to the Associations) under Clause 3 of the Guidelines of 1995 and also under the earlier order of this Court, would require the Associations, for continuance of such recognition, to fulfil the requirement prescribed in the aforesaid guidelines. It has further been held that those service associations which do not fall under these guidelines, the recognition has to be withdrawn as provided under Clause-7.

The Petitioner, Tripura Tribal Employees Association, is one of such associations recognised in 1989 and continued as such in view of the earlier orders of this Court and also in view of Clause-3 of the Guidelines of 1995. Therefore, the matter relating to continuance of its recognition or withdrawal thereof was to be considered as per provisions of Clause-7 of the Guidelines of 1995.

In Misc. Case No. 215 of 1994 arising out of Civil Rule No. 58 of 1994, in para 13, a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the case of 62 Associations also directed the State Government to re-examine the cases of the Associations, which have already been recognised, in the light of guidelines which were to be laid down by the state as per directions given therein and to pass fresh orders of recognition or derecognition as per provisions of the guidelines directed to be framed.

After going through the pleadings and the affidavit-in opposition, this Court has no doubt that the question relating to continuance of recognition or withdrawal thereof has to be considered under provisions of the guidelines of 1995.

Shri K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner argued that while issuing the Memorandum dated 30th July, 1997, the Government violated the provisions of the guidelines as the Petitioner Association was not given an opportunity to represent its case as laid down in clause-7 of the Guidelines of 1995.

Controverting the submission of Sri Bhattacharjee, Shri U.B. Saha, learned Government Advocate argued that in para 8 of the writ petition, the Petitioner Association Admitted that they were given opportunity to represent their case and, therefore, the requirement of the provisions of Clause-7 were duly complied with.

After a careful scrutiny of the averment made in para 8, what I find that the Petitioner Association vide letter dated 2.6.1997 submitted certain information called for by the Respondents in connection with their application for recognition of the Association. In my opinion, this act on the part of the Respondents to obtain certain information in relation to an application for recognition cannot be said to be an opportunity given to the Respondents to represent their case as per provisions in Clause-7 of the Guidelines of 1995.

At this stage, I may avert to the provision of Clause-3 and Clause-7 of the guidelines of 1995. They read as follows:

A Service Association, federal on Coordinated body and its constituent bodies which has been recognised by the State Government before commencement of these guidelines and in respect of which the recognition is subsisting on such commencement shall continue to be so recognised till disposal of all the applications received by the State Government from such Association federal or coordinated body or its constituent body for recognition under these guidelines or derecognition of existing Association federal or coordinated or constituent body by the State Government.

WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION.

If, in the opinion of the Government, a Service Association/Union/Federal or Coordinated body recognised under these guidelines has failed to comply with any of the conditions set out in these guideline, the Government may after giving an opportunity to the Service Association/Union/Federal or Coordinated body to represent its case, withdraw the recognition.

Clause-3 quoted above clearly shows that the Associations which were recognised by the State Government before commencement of these guidelines shall continue to be so recognised till disposal of the application for recognition under these guidelines. The Petitioner Association being an Association recognised on 26.8.1989, has a right for consideration for recognition or continuance of recognition as per provisions of the guidelines of 1995. Clause 7 quoted above shows that the State Government may withdraw the recognition after giving an opportunity to the service association/Union/Federal or coordinated body to represent its case. In the instant case, as alleged by the Petitioner, no opportunity worth it''s name has been extended to the Petitioner Association before the impugned notification (Annexure-15) was passed. The plea of the learned Government Advocate that the admission made by the Petitioner association in para 8 of the writ petition is enough compliance of the requirements of pre-decisional hearing is not acceptable as an "opportunity of being heard" as contemplated in Clause-7 of the guidelines of 1995.

There is no doubt that the guidelines vest with the Government the powers to consider the case of different Associations under Clause-7 as above, but this power is not to be exercised in an arbitrary manner depriving an association of its status as a recognised association enjoyed by it since 1989 without giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, I have no hesitation to declare that the impugned notification has been issued in violation of the provisions of Clause-7 of the guidelines of 1995.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned notification dated 30th July, 1997,(Annexure-15) is hereby quashed. The Respondent Government, after allowing adequate opportunity to the Petitioner-association to represent its case, may take decision afresh either to continuing the recognition or withdrawing the same.

No order as to costs.