I have heard Mr. A. Nilamani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
Association as well as Mr. T. Nandakumar, learned Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondents.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the Manipur DIC Supervisors Association, formerly called the Manipur DIC Field Staff Employees' Association. DIC stands to District Industries Centre.
3. The petitioner Association's 68 members were initially appointed and designated as Field Organiser (Cottage/Handloom) and Economic Surveyor in the DICs. in the pay scale of Rs. 325-710 per month. There were four other posts, namely, Supervisor (Infrastructure), Supervisor (Credit), Supervisor (Marketing) and Supervisor (Technical) in the DICs.
4. Considering that the DICs Field Organisers and Economic Surveyors on the one hand and Surveyors on the other requiring more or less same essential qualifications, discharge same or similar functions, the respondent No.4 Director of Industries wrote to the respondent No.2, Secretary (Industries) vide Annexure A/1 dated 28.2.83 to convey an approval of the Govt for equalisation of pay scale and status of the Field Organisers, Economic Surveyors and Surveyors. The respondent No.2, in turn made similar request to the respondent No.3 Secretary, Finance (PIC) vide Annexure A/2 dated 19.5.83. PIC stands for Pay Implementation cell.
5. The Finance Department (PIC) by referring to its notification dated 16.6.83 regarding amendment of the Manipur Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1982 (ROP 82 in short) issued a corrigendum, Annexure A/3 dated 17.10.87 revising he pay scale of Field Organisers and Economic Surveyors from Rs. 325-710 per month to Rs. 720-1,470 wef 31.3.82 equal to the pay scale of Supervisors.
6. The Finance Department (PIC) issued another order, Annexure A/4 dated 11.3.88 revising the pay scale Rs. 720-1,470 per month to Rs. 1,400-40-1,800-EB-50-2,300 per month as specified in the First Schedule appended to Manipur (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1987 (ROP 87 in short).
7. The Finance Department (PIC) issued a letter Annexure A/6 dated 24.12.91 to the General Manager, DIC that "the employees who were enjoying the scale of pay of Rs. 1,400-2,300 under ROP 87 may continue to elect that scale of pay even after the notification of the ROP 90 if such retention of the scales of pay under the ROP 87 are more beneficial to them .
8. The petitioner Association submitted representation to the Govt. to redesign ate the post Field Organisers and Economic Surveyors as Supervisor (KVI/Textile/ED on the ground that all the supporting staff of the DIG, namely, Supervisor, Field Organisers and Economic Surveyors have been discharging same or similar functions under the respective Functional/Project Managers and have been enjoying the same pay scale of Rs. 1,400-2,300 per month. The Under Secretary, Industries sent the representation to the Respondent No. 4 Director of Industries to examine the matter and submit a report vide Annexure A/7 dated 2.7.93. The respondent No. 4 submitted a favourable report, Annexure A/ 8 dated 27.8.93 to the Commissioner of Industries stating inter alia, the proposal when implemented will not cause any financial commitment/involvement. The proposal may, therefore, be considered favourably at the earliest as a measure of streamlining the nomenclatures of the Department.
9. After exchange of correspondences, ultimately the Commissioner, Industries Department issued the following orders, Annexure A/11 dated 30.12.93. (Not quoted: Editor)
10. Under the relevant Recruitment Rules vide Annexure A/13, the post of Supervisor (DIC) is one of the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (DIQ/Development Officer (DIC). Consequent of redesignation of the post of Field Organiser arid Economic Surveyor as Supervisor (KVI/Textile/ El), the members of the petitioner Association who were initially appointed and designated as Field Organiser and Economic Surveyor had been made eligible for promotion to the higher post of Assistant Director (DIC/Development Officer (DIC).
11. Then came the following Govt. order Annexure A/14 dated 13.9.94, The following is the full text of the said order: (Not quoted: Editor)
12. Being aggrieved, the petitioner Association has filed the instant writ petition challenging the above order adversely affecting its members on the grounds that the impugned officer has not disclosed any reason whatsoever for cancellation of redesignation, that by redesignation order a right has been accrued to confer upon the members of the petitioner Association for being considered for promotion to the higher post of Assistant Director/ Development Officer, that no show cause notice was given to them before issuing the impugned order adversely affecting them and that redesignation does not involve any financial implication as they have been enjoying the same scale of pay which they were enjoying immediately before redesignation of respective posts.
13. On behalf of the. State respondents, a Joint Secretary Finance (PIC) Department filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia, that the Finance Department which is consulted for creation of post, redesignation etc, particularly where there are financial implications have not been consulted by the Administrative Department i.e. Industries Department before issue of the order and hence the order was cancelled.
14. This is not a public interest litigation. Admittedly, the petitioner Association is not registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or under any other statute. A technical point is taken in paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner Association, not being a registered body is not a legal entity which can sue or be sued in its name. On this point, in paragraph 3 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated the petitioner Association having disclosed the names and service particulars of its members in an Appendix to the writ petition, has got legal entity to sue and be sued in law, though it has not been registered. Obviously, such disclosure does not confer any legal entity on the petitioner Association to maintain a legal proceeding. Nothing has been placed before me to show that the petitioner Association, though not a legal entity is permitted by any specific statutory provision to sue or be sued in its collective capacity. Mr. T. Nanda Kumar, learned Advocate General, submits that the petitioner Association, not being a registered body having legal entity, this writ petition filed by its not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Where a number of individuals are affected by an official act, they can ordinarily bring a legal proceeding to challenge that act only if all such persons joined in the proceedings by name. In the instant case, all the members of the petitioner Association who have been adversely affected by the impugned Govt. order, Annexure A/14 dated 13.1.94 ought to have joined in the writ petition by name. It has been held in DGOF Employees' Association vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1969 Calcutta 149 (151) that:
9. In the case of a body incorporated by law, the corporate body acquires a legal personality of itself and is as such entitled to maintain legal proceedings. But an unincorporated association has no legal personality and it is nothing but an aggregation of its members who can only bring legal proceedings in their individual capacity. Even when all of them are affected by an official act, they can challenge that only if all the members join in the proceedings by name, the Association, in such a case, cannot maintain an application under Article 226 or other legal proceeding in its own name, as has been established by a number of decisions.
15. Even where-an Association is permitted by law to bring a legal proceeding, it can bring an application under Article 226 only when it rights as a collective body as distinguished froth the aggregate rights of its members are affected by the act challenged in the proceedings (Chiranjit Lal vs. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41).
15. Mr. A. Nilamani, learned senior counsel for the Association, however, contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case the instant petition should not be thrown out at this stage on the ground that it was filed by an unregistered Association. In this regard, Mr. Nilamani refers to the decision in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (Railway) vs. Union of India & others reported in (1981) 1 SCC 246 (281). This decision is clearly distinguishable. There the point raised was whether an unrecognised Association can bring a legal proceeding, and not whether an unregistered Association can do so, and in that case learned Attorney General took no objection to a non-recognised Association maintaining the writ petitions. Moreover the said decision speaks of 'little Indians'.
16. Mr. A Nilamani placed reliance on another decision in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti reported in AIR 1984 Allahabad 46 (58) which refers to the earlier decision as under:
7. The question of 'standing' was the subject of a passing observation by Krishna Iyre, J in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamachari Sangh's case, AIR 1981 SC 298 (to which the other two learned Judges constituting the Bench did not avert to). According to these observations the concept of 'cause of action' and 'person aggrieved' has become obsolescent in some jurisdictions, like 'public interest litigation' by little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in Courts. In such a case alone an Association of little Indians may be permitted to sue on their behalf. These observations graft an exception to the traditional rule of locus standi. They # will not cover the case of an association suing on behalf of its members where its own interests are not affected and where its members do not answer the description of little Indians.
45. Our answer to the referred questions is as follows:
A.1 The position appears to be mat an association of persons, registered or unregistered, can file a petition under Article 226 for enforcement of the rights of its members as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights:
(1) In case members of such an association are themselves unable to approach the Court by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position ('little Indians')
(2) In case of a public injury leading to public interest litigation, provided the association has some concern deeper than that of a wayfarer or a busy body, i.e. it has a special interest in the subject matter.
(3) Where the rules or regulations of the association specifically authorise it to
"take legal proceedings on behalf of its members. So that any order passed by the Court in such proceedings will be binding on the members. In other cases an association, whether registered or unregistered, cannot maintain a petition under Article 226 for the enforcement of protection of the rights of its members, as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights."
(emphasis supplied).
17. There is nothing on record to show that the members of the petitioner Association are unable to approach the Court by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position ('little Indians') and that the rules of regulations of the petitioner Association specifically authorized it to take legal proceeding on behalf of its members. The writ petition as well as rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner Association is silent in this regard. It is obviously not a case of public injury.
18. In view of the above, it must be held that this writ petition filed by the petitioner Association is not maintainable and is, therefore, dismissed without entering into its merit
19. I, however, hope and trust that the State respondents would consider on merit the case of the members of the petitioner Association having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances. This Court's interim orders dated 21.9.94 and 9.2.95 suspending the operation of the impugned order dated 13.9.94 (Annexure A/14) stand vacated.
20. The parties are left to bear their own Costs.