Allowed

R.Durga Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Dec 2021WP/11505/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court clarified that while the Government Order of 01.11.2011 prescribed recommended rates, the subsequent agreement dated 01.06.2012 incorporated these rates into the contract. Consequently, the Court directed payment of enhanced rates for the period from 01.06.2012 onwards but dismissed the claim for the earlier period where no such incorporation was proven.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to pay the petitioner the enhanced rates as per G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011 from 01.06.2012 onwards; no order as to costs.

R.Durga Rao, Vs The Government of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

W.P.No.11505 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner had been awarded a contract to supply diet to the patients as well as the medical staff of respondent Nos.4 & 5-hospitals. Under these contracts, the petitioner had supplied diet for some period before 01.11.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner was the successful bidder for supply of diet for a period of two years starting from 01.06.2012 in the hospital of the 4^th respondent.

¶5

The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011 fixing certain recommended rates per patient per day and for the medical staff. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be paid at the rates mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011. As the payments made to the petitioners were not in accordance with these rates, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner the diet rates in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011.

¶6

The learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any such relief. The learned Government Pleader would draw the attention of this Court to paragraphs5 & 8 of G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011, which reads as follows:

¶7

“ 5. The Government, after careful examination of the matter hereby accept the recommendations of the Diet Committee, and decided to streamline the management system for delivery of nutritious food to inpatients in all Government hospitals and health centres under the control of Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, besides increasing the diet charges and specify new diet schedule.

¶8

RRR,J 2 W.P.No.11505 of 2014

¶9

Accordingly, the Government orders that balanced and nutritious diet be provided to every general inpatient, admitted into the Government Hospitals and health centres including duty doctors as per the following enhanced diet charges:-

¶10

Sl.No.	Category	The prevailing rate per patient per day	Recommended rate per patient per day
1	All inpatients and attendants of Tribal patients.	Rs.20/-	Rs.40/-
2	Inpatients (T.B/Mental and therapeutic patients)	Rs.28/-	Rs.56/-
3	Duty Doctors	Rs.40/-	Rs.80/-

¶11

The present Diet Contract with the new rates and new diet schedule can be continued till the contract period expires or up to 31^st March 2012, whichever is earlier.”

¶12

The learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health

¶13

submits that these clauses of G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011 make it clear that the rates are only recommended rates and unless there are proceedings accepting such rates, there can be no further payment as per the rates set out in G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011. He submits that no such proceedings have been given for the period prior to 01.11.2011 to enable the petitioner to claim the rates set out in G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011.

¶14

The learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health also draw the attention of this Court to proceedings dated 29.05.2012 in Rc.No.777/D1/2012 of the 4^th respondent under which the contract for supply of diet from 01.06.2012 was awarded to the petitioner. He submits that under these proceedings, the petitioner was entitled for payment of Rs.28/- per head for inpatients and Rs.65/- per Doctor with effect from 01.06.2012 and the petitioner is not entitled to claim the rates set out in G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011. He submits that even though

¶15

RRR,J 3 W.P.No.11505 of 2014

¶16

G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011 had set out recommended rates, the said rates should be treated as the maximum permissible rates and contracts have to be awarded only in accordance with the bids offered by the diet contractors.

¶17

Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent on 01.06.2012 and the recital in the said agreement clearly stipulates that the petitioner is entitled to the rates set out in G.O.Ms.No.325. She also relies upon further correspondence, filed as additional material papers, between the 4^th respondent and the 2^nd respondent. In the letter dated 29.01.2016 bearing Rc.No.3853/SPA/16, wherein the 2^nd respondent had called upon the 4^th respondent to submit an explanation as to why the petitioner was not being given the enhanced diet charges as per G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011 in view of the earlier letter dated 20.08.2013 wherein the 4^th respondent was directed to follow G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent addressed a letter dated 29.10.2016 bearing Rc.No.Spl/A3/2015 stating that an amount of Rs.1,04,24,786 is the differential amount which has to be paid to the petitioner on account of the enhanced diet charges and the same could not be released as there were no sufficient budget. The 2^nd respondent again issued a Circular Memo No.B2/DME/487/2016 dated 11.01.2017 instructing the 4^th respondent to clear the arrears and to report compliance. Another letter that the learned counsel relied upon is the letter of the 4^th respondent to the 2^nd respondent dated 20.06.2016 in which the 2^nd respondent mentions the agreement dated 01.06.2012 where in it had been clearly mentioned that the revised diet charges of G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011 would be applicable to the petitioner.

¶18

RRR,J 4 W.P.No.11505 of 2014

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the work order dated 29.05.2012 sets out certain rates, the subsequent contract executed between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent stipulated that the rates set out in G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011 would be applicable to the petitioner and as such, the respondents cannot dispute the liability.

¶20

G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011 prescribed a recommended rate. The claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to the said rates would be maintainable only where specific proceedings have been drawn up making the rates applicable to the case of the petitioner. 9. As far as the supply of diet prior to 01.06.2012 is concerned, no document or communication permitting the petitioner to charge at the rate fixed in G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011 has been placed before this Court. In the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner to that extent has to fail.

¶21

As far as the diet charges after 01.06.2012 are concerned, the learned Government Pleader relies upon the work order dated 29.05.2012 wherein the petitioner was to be paid at the rate of Rs.28/per patient per day and Rs.65/- per Doctor per day. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the subsequent agreement dated 01.06.2021 wherein the rates fixed under G.O.Ms.No.325 were applicable to the petitioner. While it can be seen that the petitioner had earlier agreed to certain rates, the subsequent agreement dated 01.06.2012 stipulated that the rates set out in G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011 would be applicable to the petitioner. In the light of this clear agreement in writing, the petitioner cannot be denied the enhanced rates.

¶22

RRR,J 5 W.P.No.11505 of 2014

¶23

In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed directing the 4^th respondent to pay the petitioner the enhanced rates as per G.O.Ms.No.325 dated 01.11.2011 from 01.06.2012 onwards. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶26

14^th December, 2021 Js.

¶27

RRR,J 6 W.P.No.11505 of 2014

¶28

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶29

W.P.No.11505 of 2014

¶30

14^th December, 2021

¶31

Js.

R.Durga Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Durga Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kallamadi Obulamma, Vs Yerragudi kareem sab(Died by his L.R.S)

Kallamadi Obulamma Vs Yerragudi kareem sab(Died by his L.R.S)

Kommula Sumathi Devi Vs Chelluboina Bulisatyam

Kora Veera Venkata Satya Annapurneswari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by the Secretary

Gurram Jamalamma Vs Chepuri Srinivasa Rao

Kora Veera Venkata Satya "Annapurneswari Vs The Assistant Commissioner