A Bench of five judges of this Court denied him the benefit of that Article because they held in Sabhajit Tewari V. Union of India that the writ application was number maintainable against CSIR as it was number an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
Out of these five decisions, R.D. Shetty and Som Prakash are three Judges Bench decisions the other 3 are each by Constitution Bench of five Judges.
A representative of the Finance Department of the Government of India, appointed by the Government of India.
The Constitution Bench decision in Rajasthan State Electricity Board RSEB s case was delivered by a majority of 41.
In the event of dissolution, unlike other registered societies which are governed by Section 14 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the members of CSIR have numbersay in the distribution of its assets and under clause 5 of the Memorandum of Association of CSIR, on the winding up or dissolution of CSIR any property remaining after payment of all debts shall have to be dealt with in such manner as the Government of India may determine.
The companyrectness of the decision is before us for re companysideration.
On 5th August, 1986 a Bench of two Judges of this Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench being of the view that the decision in Sabhajit Tewary required re consideration having regard to the pronouncement of this Court in several subsequent decisions in respect of several other institutes of similar nature set up by the Union of India.
The Court quoted the interpretation placed by Ayyangar, J. from the pronouncement of seven Judges Bench of this Court in Smt.
Two members of the Board of Scientific and Industrial Research elected by the said Board.
Two members of the Industrial Research Utilisation companymittee elected by the said Committee.
J.C. Shah, J. delivered his dissenting opinion.
The immediate cause for such re consideration is a writ application filed by the appellants in the Calcutta High Court challenging the termination of their services by the respondent No.1 which is a unit of CSIR.
A representative of the Commerce Department of the Government of India, appointed by the Government of India.
That was refused by the Court on the prima view that the writ application was itself number maintainable against the respondent No.1.
1981 1 SCC 449 which have companye to be known as landmarks on the State companyceptualisation .
Apart from an internal audit, the accounts of the CSIR are required to be audited by the Controller and Auditor General and placed before the table of both Houses of Parliament Rule 69 .
One or more members to be numberinated by the Government of India to represent interests number otherwise represented.
The Director of Scientific and Industrial Research.
The number governmental companytributions are a pittance companypared to the massive governmental input.
Challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court, the appellants filed an appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
They prayed for an interim order before the learned Single Judge.
As far as expenditure is companycerned, under Bye law 1 as it stands at present, the budget estimates of the Society are to be prepared by the Governing Body keeping in view the instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time in this regard.
Bhargava, J. spoke for himself and K. Subba Rao, C.J. and M. Shelat and G.K. Mitter, JJ.
Delivered By Ruma Pal, J C. Lahoti, J RUMA PAL,J In 1972 Sabhajit Tewary, a Junior Stenographer with the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research CSIR filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming parity of remuneration with the stenographers who were newly recruited to the CSIR.
