Telangana High Court
Rachapudi Venkata Krishna Rao vs Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. on 11 October, 2018
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No. 23615 of 2002
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 16.10.2002 of the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the office orders of the respondent dated 17.01.2002. A consequential direction is also sought to the respondent to consider the past service of the petitioner to the tune of 6 years and 9 days rendered by him in Andhra Pradesh Steels Limited, a State Public Sector Undertaking, for the purpose of calculating the voluntary retirement benefits.
2. Heard Sri A.P. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri D.Ravi Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. It has been contended by the petitioner that he worked as Assistant Personnel Officer in Andhra Pradesh Steels Limited, which is a State Public Sector Undertaking and a subsidiary of A.P.I.D.C., Hyderabad. While he was working in the said company, the respondent herein advertised for the post of Personnel and Industrial Relations Officer. He had responded to the said advertisement through proper channel i.e., Andhra Pradesh Steels Limited, and submitted no objection certificate from the said company. After undertaking regular selection process, he was appointed for the post of Personnel and Industrial Relations Officer on 24.08.1982, pursuant to which, he reported for duty on 31.01.1983. While he was working with the respondent, the respondent had introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the cadre of Deputy Manager (Personnel). He had submitted his 2 application under the said scheme and the same was considered, and accordingly, he was retired on 30.03.2002. His grievance is that though he made a representation dated 07.08.2002 requesting the respondent to consider the past service rendered by him in Andhra Pradesh Steels Limited i.e., for a period of 6 years and 9 days for the purpose of computing Voluntary Retirement Compensation, but curiously, the respondent rejected his claim by proceedings dated 16.10.2002 on the ground that he is not entitled for the said benefit since the service rendered by him was in a State Public Sector Undertaking and the circular issued by the respondent is only applicable for those who have rendered service in Central Public Sector Undertaking.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that as per the Circular No.CMD/IO/007/2002 dated 17.01.2002 issued by the respondent, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of past service rendered by him in the State Public Sector Undertaking for the purpose of computation and payment of voluntary retirement compensation. Therefore, the respondent is not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that since the petitioner had worked in Andhra Pradesh Steels Limited, which is a State Public Sector Undertaking, prior to his reporting to duty in the respondent organization, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits of the past service rendered by him in Andhra Pradesh Steels Limited. 3
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the party and perused the record. It is relevant to extract hereunder Clause-2 of Circular dated 17.01.2002 issued by the respondent:
"2. Consideration of service rendered in other PSUs / PSEs for the purpose of computation and payment of V.R. Compensation (Ex-gratia) 2.1 The past service rendered by the employees in other PSUs / PSEs shall be counted for computation and payment of compensation under Revised VRS in HSL subject to fulfillment of the following criteria / conditions.
i) Those joined HSL prior to 01.01.1988:
a) Past service should be from a PSU and the application for employment in HSL should have been received through proper channel.
b) The service with each PSU is continuous ( without break) subject to the admissible joining time as indicated in para 2.2 of this 1.0 and
c) The PF should have been transferred from the previous PSU to HSL.
ii) Those joined HSL on or after 01.01.1988:
a) Past service should be from a PSU and the application for employment in HSL should have been received through proper channel.
b) The service with each PSU is continuous ( without break ) subject to the admissible joining time as indicated in para 2.2 of this 1.0 and
c) The PF and E.L. should have been transferred from the previous PSU and HSL."
7. On a perusal of Clause-2 of Circular dated 17.01.2002 issued by the respondent, it is obvious that no stipulation is made with regard to denial of benefit of past service rendered by the petitioner and that no averment is 4 made in the Circular that those who worked in the Central Public Sector Undertakings will only be extended the benefit of past service. In the absence of the same, this Court would not see any difference between Central Public Sector Undertakings and State Public Sector Undertakings. Further, the petitioner reported for duty in the respondent organization on 31.01.1983 after obtaining no objection certificate from the earlier employer. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the retrial benefits of the petitioner, by duly taking into account the service rendered by him in Andhra Pradesh Steels Limited, within a period eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 11th October, 2018 cbs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Writ Petition No. 23615 of 2002 11th October, 2018 cbs 6