High Court Judgment on Union Subscription Deduction in Department of Posts

Case Summary: High Court Judgment on Union Subscription Deduction

Court: High Court at Calcutta 

Case No.: WPA 12853 of 2023 

Parties: Asit Bangabash & Others (Petitioners/Union Members) vs. Union of India & Others (Respondents/Department of Posts) 

Judgment Date: 19th November, 2025 

Judges: Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) 

Verdict: Petition ALLOWED. 

The government's order to stop salary deductions for union subscriptions was quashed.

🧐 What Was the Dispute About?

The core issue was whether the government could stop the automatic deduction of union membership fees (subscriptions) from employees' salaries just because it had withdrawn its official "recognition" from that union.

• The Government's Action: The Department of Posts withdrew the recognition of the petitioners' union (AIPEU Group ‘C’) in April 2023. Following this, in May 2023, it issued an email directive instructing all offices to stop deducting membership subscriptions from the salaries of its members.

• The Union's Challenge: The petitioners argued that stopping the "check-off facility" (salary deduction) violated their fundamental Right to Freedom of Association under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. They claimed that the right to be a member and financially support a union is separate from the government's formal recognition of that union.

⚖️ The Court's Key Findings & Reasoning

The High Court sided with the union members and set aside the government's directive. Here’s why:

1. Recognition ≠ Membership Deduction: The court clearly distinguished between the status of a union (recognized or not) and the right of an individual employee to be a member and pay subscriptions. Withdrawing recognition is a separate action and does not automatically extinguish an employee's right to fund their chosen association.

2. No Legal Basis for the Ban: The court found that the original derecognition order (dated 26.04.2023) only spoke about withdrawing recognition. The subsequent email to stop salary deductions was merely a "clarification" issued by an official (ADG SR & Legal) without any formal government order or legal authority to support it. It was an overreach.

3. Past Practice Favored Deductions: The judgment highlighted several past government orders (from 1997, 2007, and even 2023) that explicitly stated that subscription deductions should continue for unions that fulfill basic conditions, even if they are not recognized. The department was already following this practice for other unrecognized unions.

4. Existence of Union at Stake: The court agreed with the petitioners' argument that stopping salary deductions would effectively cripple the union. Since membership is officially recorded through this deduction process, stopping it would erase the union's membership base, making it impossible for it to ever qualify for recognition again in the future.

✅ The Final Outcome / Judgment

• The email directive dated 15.05.2023, which stopped the deduction of union subscriptions, was quashed and set aside.
• The Court ordered that the deduction of membership subscriptions must continue through the Drawing and Disbursing Officers (DDOs) as was done before.
• The government's act was found to be without legal authority and a violation of the employees' rights.

In simple terms, the court ruled that the government cannot "strangle" a union by cutting off its financial lifeblood (subscriptions collected via salary deduction) just because it has chosen to withdraw its formal recognition. The right of employees to associate and pay for their union is protected by the Constitution.