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 :