Telangana High Court
Suresh Chandu Bhuyan, Hyderabad vs Prl. Secretary, Housing Dept., Hyd And 2 ... on 5 June, 2023
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P. No. 4695 of 2017
Between:
Suresh Chandra Bhuyan
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 05.06.2023
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
_________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 4695 of 2017
% 05.06.2023
Between:
# Suresh Chandra Bhuyan
..... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana and others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s K.V.Rajasree
^ Counsel for the Respondent: G.P for Housing
? Cases Referred:
3
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 4695 of 2017
ORDER:
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Learned Government Pleader for Housing and learned standing counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the special package to the petitioner as stated by the 2nd and 3rd respondents and as worked out by the accounts department of 2nd respondent totally amounting to a sum of Rs.11,94,530/- with future interest as arbitrary, illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the same to the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner joined the service in the respondent board as NMR plumber on 01.01.1984 and was retrenched on 11.04.2005 after completion of nearly 22 years of service. 4
The petitioner's salary at the time of retrenchment is Rs.5,490/-.
b) At the time of retrenchment, the petitioner was assured of a special package by the respondents of benefit of five times of the normal package and that the 2nd respondent had given letter to that effect vide letter No.A2/EE(CD)/2005, dated 06.05.2005. In fact, even the 2nd respondent has also assured of such a package. However, the 2nd respondent vide his letter dated 08.04.2005 has paid a salary of one month which is Rs.5541/- by way of one month pay in lieu of notice under Section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner requested the respondents to pay the benefits as per their own letters. However, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.2,51,616/- only.
c) The petitioner has been approaching the respondents to give normal payment and the same has been worked out by the Chief Accounts Officer of the respondent board which shows that the balance amount payable is Rs.6,94,494/- and interest @ 6% for 12 years comes to Rs.5,00,040/- and thus, a total amount payable comes to Rs.11,94,530/-. As the said 5 amount has been paid to the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed.
4. PERUSED THE RECORD :
The counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, in particular, the relevant paras 4, 5 and 6 reads as under:
"4. It is humbly submitted that the respondent Housing Board, retrenched the employees and the employees have filed Writ Petition and no stay was granted except in the matter of Sweepers. It is humbly submitted that the employees have approached respondent housing board and requested for special package and accordingly special package was paid to all the employees. The Petitioner was also paid the amount under special package. It is further submitted that with regard to the Work charged employees benefits, there was typographical mistake and due to same 75 days wages were mentioned instead of 45 days and the Petitioner now is trying to take undue advantage of the said typographical mistake. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner (NMR) herein along with others filed Writ Petition challenging the order of retrenchment in the year 2005 and subsequently the same was withdrawn and received the amount 6 under special package announced by this respondent without any demur.
5. In reply to the averments made in para 3 of the affidavit filed by the Petitioner, it is submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that in the special package it was offered more up to five times is absolutely incorrect. It is further submitted that calculation memo filed along with Writ Petition do not bear signature of any officer and this respondent made enquiry and Chief Accounts officer informed that he has not prepared any such statement at any point of time. It is humbly submitted that the claim is made by the petitioner on the basis of fictitious documents for self serving purpose.
6. It is submitted that this Respondent Housing Board is not liable to pay any amount to the Petitioner and the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and same is liable to be dismissed.
5. The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, in particular, the relevant paras 6, 7 and 8 reads as under:
"6. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner was paid Rs.2,51,616/- as per the special package offered to the NMRS. I further submit that the 7 special package amount was paid to the petitioner in pursuance of the decision taken by the Group of Ministers and offered him more amount than the amount payable under the Industrial Disputes Act. I submit that while communicating the decision to the petitioner there was a typographical mistake with regard to the work charged employees that instead of 45 days it was mentioned as 75 days. I further submit that the petitioner was not a work charged employee but he was only NMR. I submit that the petitioner is claiming an amount of Rs.9,46,110/- and interest on the said amount. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner is untenable and unsustainable in law.
7. I humbly submit that the statement which the petitioner enclosed to this writ petition do not bear the signature of the Officer of the Respondent Housing Board and the Officer of this Respondent Housing Board has totally denied that he has prepared any statement and the said Officer is prepared to give an affidavit if this Hon'ble Court feels that it is necessary. I further submit that the said Officer also categorically stated that he was not there when the retrenchment compensation was paid to the employees, as he was relieved to his parent department on 16-04-2005. Therefore, the statement alleged by using the name of the Officer is ill-founded by the petitioner to mislead this Hon'ble Court in order to enrich themselves. I 8 humbly submit that it was informed to all the workers that VRS package of the NMRs and work charged employees was approved by the Group of Ministers. I humbly submit that with regard to work charged employee VRS was paid as the month's salary (ie, 45 days) for every completed year of service. With regard to NMR workers VRS was paid as one month salary for every completed your of service. I therefore respectfully submit that the petitioner was paid the amount as per the decision taken by this Respondent Housing Board and the petitioner received the same as per the special package offered and this Respondent Housing Board has not committed any irregularity. I humbly submit that the Division Bench in WP No.270 of 2011 and batch passed Judgment dated 22-03-2012 in respect of the employees who have not received the special package and the retrenchment compensation offered by this Respondent Housing Board and granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and such of those employees who have not received the amount were taken back into service. Whereas the petitioner herein was paid and received the amount and approached this Hon'ble Court after lapse of 12 years.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION :
9
6. A bare perusal of the specific averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent and additional counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that the specific plea of the 2nd and 3rd respondents is as follows :
i) that petitioner was paid Rs.2,51,616/- as per the special package offered to NMRs and while communicating the decision to the petitioner there was a typographical mistake with regard to the work charged employees that is instead of 45 days it was mentioned as 75 days
ii) that the petitioner was not a work charged employee, but he was only NMR.
iii) that the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.9,46,110/- and interest on the said amount, for which the petitioner is not entitled.
iv) As per para 7 of the additional counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent the statement enclosed by the petitioner along with the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition does not bear the signature of the officer of the 10 respondent Housing Board and the Officer of the respondent housing board had in fact, totally denied that he had prepared any statement and the said Officer is prepared to give an affidavit before this Court on oath.
v) The said respondent officer also stated that he was not there when the retrenchment compensation was paid to the employees and the petitioner had used the name of the officer concerned to mislead the Court and to enrich himself.
vi) That with regard to work charged employee VRS was paid as 1½ month salary i.e. 45 days for every completed year of service and with regard to NMR workers VRS was paid as one month salary for every completed year of service.
vii) That the petitioner was paid the amount as per the decision taken by the respondent Housing Board and the petitioner received the same as per the special package offered by the respondent and the respondent Housing Board has not committed any irregularity.
viii) That the petitioner is not entitled for any amount and the claim made by the petitioner is totally misconceived. 11
ix) That the petitioner received the amount under special package and the petitioner only tried to take undue advantage of typographical mistake.
9. Taking into consideration, of the above referred facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner failed to explain the reasons for the delay in approaching the Court after lapse of 12 years after having received the amounts due to the petitioner in the year 2005 without any demur or protest and duly considering the specific averments made in the additional counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent (referred to and extracted above) the writ petition is dismissed since the same is devoid of merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 05.06.2023 Note: L.R. copy to be marked b/o kvrm