Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M. Surya Rao, Visakhapatnam vs Chairman M.D. Dredging Corp 2Ot on 2 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No:W.P.No. 1045 OF 2012
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No NOTE.
RNT,J
17. 02.08.2022 1. The petitioner is claiming the benefits of
performance related payment (PRP) for the year
2009-10, as per the scheme of the Government of
India, Ministry of heavy industries & Public Enterprises,
Department of Public Enterprises, New Delhi, dated
26.11.2008, Ex.P2, which has been denied to the
petitioner vide the impugned order dated 05.08.2011
on the ground that, as per PRP Scheme, the PRP
applicable for the year 2009-10, will be disbursed to
those eligible employees, who were on regular rolls of
the company on the date of approval by the
Remuneration Committee for that year, i.e. on
29.10.2010 and as the petitioner had already resigned
on 31.08.2010 and was not on the rolls of the company
on the date of approval by the Remuneration
Committee, he was not so entitled.
2. Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel,
representing Ms. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the Remuneration Committee
has no jurisdiction to fix the date of approval from
which the person would be entitled for benefits of PRP.
The petitioner during the financial year 2009-10 was on
the roll of the company and as the matter pertains to
the grant of PRP for that period, the petitioner cannot
be denied the same relief even if resigned on
31.08.2010 as the financial year 2009-10 would have
come to an end on 31.03.2010 on which date the
petitioner was on the rolls of the company.
3. The respondent No.1 on the basis of the counter
affidavit submits that the Remuneration Committee has approved the payment of PRP for employees, who were on the regular rolls of the company for the year 2 2009-10 as on 29.10.2010. He submits that as per Clause 9 (f) of PRP Scheme, the persons who resigned and had been relieved as on the date of approval, are not eligible for PRP.
4. The complete Scheme is not on record. The document pertaining to the Remuneration Committee fixing the date of approval is also not on record.
5. By order dated 30.11.2020 and thereafter also, time was granted to the learned Assistant Solicitor General to ascertain the latest developments, which are not made available. Any counter affidavit for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is also not filed.
6. Sri B.Varun, learned advocate represents that the name of Sri N.Harinadh, learned Assistant Solicitor General is not printed in the cause list and prays that the matter may be taken up next week.
7. List on 10.08.2022.
8. Before the next date, relevant instructions be placed before the Court. The Complete scheme as also the resolution etc. of the Remuneration Committee be also brought on record by way of affidavit.
9. When the case is next listed, the name of Sri N.Harinadh, learned Assistant Solicitor General, shall be printed in the cause list.
10. Registry shall remove this matter from the caption 'for dismissal'.
________ RNT,J Scs 3