Dismissed

Col.Augustine Mangatteparambil (Retd) v. the Unit Head

Kerala HC20 Jan 2021WP(C)/15575/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired Colonel filed this writ petition seeking a work order and declaring that respondents cannot award contracts to non-sponsored agencies. The Court held that the petitioner's DGR empanelment period expired due to him crossing 60 years of age before the filing of the petition. Consequently, no relief was granted. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was given liberty to pursue m

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition dismissed. Liberty granted to resort to appropriate legal proceedings for any monetary claim.

Col.Augustine Mangatteparambil (Retd) Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/30TH POUSHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.15575 OF 2020(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

COL.AUGUSTINE MANGATTEPARAMBIL (RETD.), AGED 60 YEARS, PROPRIETOR,M/S.AUGUSTINE MANGATTEPARAMBIL SECURITY AGENCY, DOOR.NO.67/3078,PULIKKAL ESTATE, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 918.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.J.G.SYAMNATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE UNIT HEAD, M/S.HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES(INDIA) LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, ERANKULAM-683 501.

¶11

2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES(INDIA) LTD., 2ND FLOOR, CORE-6, SCOPE COMPLEX 7, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.

¶12

3 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, PUBLIC ENTERPRISES BHAVAN, CLOCK NO.14, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.

¶13

4 DIRECTOR(CHEM -1), MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶14

5 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL(RESTEELEMENT), GOVENMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF RESETTLEMENT, WEST BLOCK-IV, R.K.PURAK, NEW DELHI-110 066.

¶15

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM R3-R5 BY SRI.M.N.MANMADAN, CGC ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC.15575/2020

: 2 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2021

¶22

The petitioner, a retired Colonel from Indian Army, has approached this Court seeking to command respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith award the work order to the petitioner, in pursuance of Ext.P7 sponsorship letter and to declare that respondents 1 and 2 cannot award the contract to a Non-DGR sponsored agency, violating the existing rules of the Government of India.

¶23

The petitioner states that he is a retired Colonel of Indian Army and he is operating a Security Agency under a Scheme of the Director General of Resettlement (DGR), Ministry of Defence. Under the Scheme, retired commissioned officers are given self employment opportunity by allotting a security agency to operate for a limited period of

¶24

WPC.15575/2020

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

time. The period is limited to 3 years or 60 years of age. Exts.P1 and P1(A) are Office Memoranda governing such agencies.

¶27

The 1^st respondent, Unit Head of M/s. Hindustan Insecticides (India) Ltd., which is a Central Public Sector Undertaking, invited tenders for engaging security personnel in their establishment. The petitioner submitted his tender as per Ext.P9. According to the petitioner, the Tender Committee declared that the petitioner's agency is eligible for the contract. The petitioner's grievance is that in spite of being the senior most eligible agency and in spite of completing all formalities, the 1^st respondent has not placed any work order to the petitioner.

¶28

The petitioner submitted letters and

¶29

representations to the respondents requesting to award work to him. However, the representations submitted by the petitioner were not positively responded to. Due to inordinate delay on the part of the 1^st respondent in placing work orders, the petitioner is being denied the benefit of the Scheme. The

¶30

WPC.15575/2020

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

petitioner has requested the DGR to extend his period by one year.

¶33

Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit. Respondents 1 and 2 stated that the Company has not issued any Work Contract/LoI/Contract/Sponsorship in favour of the petitioner. Merely choosing the petitioner as an eligible agency for the work does not bestow any right to the petitioner.

¶34

Respondents 1 and 2 further submitted that they installed CCTVs in their premises and formed a Committee to consider reduction of number of security personnel. The Company also decided to explore the possibility of hiring of security agency of ex-servicemen facility through Government e-Marketplace (GeM) as per the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) Circular. The DPE Circular instructed that all PSUs to make procurement/services through GeM. Respondents 1 and 2 therefore sought clarifications from Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Industries, Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Government of

¶35

WPC.15575/2020

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

India. Clarifications are awaited. It is under the said circumstance that no work orders were placed.

¶38

The Central Government Counsel representing respondents 3 to 5 pointed out that the petitioner has crossed 60 years of age. Moreover, the period of empanelment by the Directorate General of Resettlement as evidenced by Ext.P6, stands expired on 24.05.2020. Therefore, there is no point in granting any relief to the petitioner since the petitioner cannot be now given work orders due to the expiry of the empanelment period.

¶39

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Central Government Counsel representing respondents 3 to 5.

¶40

The fact that respondents 1 and 2 have selected the petitioner for award of work, is not disputed. The stand of respondents 1 and 2 is that in order to reduce their expenditure, they sought the possibility of getting security personnel through GeM. No work orders are issued to the

¶41

WPC.15575/2020

¶42

: 6 :

¶43

empanelled agencies, awaiting clarifications from Government of India. From the pleadings available in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner is seeking relief on the basis of his empanelment by DGR. But, the period of empanelment is already over.

¶44

The petitioner himself has stated in paragraph 1 of the writ petition that the period of DGR empanelment is limited to 3 years or up to 60 years of age. Ext.P6 empanelment certificate produced by the petitioner would show that his period of empanelment ended on 24.05.2020. The writ petition itself is seen filed after the expiry of the period of empanelment. Therefore, a direction cannot be given to respondents 1 and 2 in this writ petition, to issue work orders to the petitioner.

¶45

The petitioner would contend that he was selected for award of works before the expiry of his DGR empanelment and respondents 1 and 2 could have given work orders to him earlier, failure of which has resulted in monetary loss to the petitioner. Assuming that the argument is tenable, the claim

¶46

WPC.15575/2020

¶47

: 7 :

¶48

of the petitioner would be a monetary claim involving disputed

¶49

questions of fact and this Court cannot adjudicate the same in writ proceedings.

¶50

In the circumstances, this Court finds that no relief can be given to the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. The petitioner will be at liberty to resort to any appropriate legal proceedings for any monetary claim against respondents 1 and 2, if he is so advised.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/20.01.2021

WPC.15575/2020

: 8 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE NO.4(20)/DS(RES/93 DATED 4/2/199	O.M 4.
EXHIBIT P1(A)	A TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.28(3) (RES-1) DATED 9/7/2012.	2012 -D
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREMEN COURT OF INDIA NO.426/2010 DATED 30/8/2017.	HON'BLE IN WPC
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER MINISTRY OF DEFENCE VIDE 2011/D(RES-1) DATED 22/3/2018.	OF THE NO.1(2)
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE OM F.NO 08/0001/2017-GM-FTS-8095 16/5/2018.	.DPE-GM- DATED
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE RETIREMENT O THE PETITIONER DATED 23/5/2013.	RDER OF
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE EMP CERTIFICATE DATED 10/4/2019.	ANELMENT
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE SPONSORSHIP DATED 8/11/2019.	LETTER
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 4/29(VII)20 DATED 28/11/2019.	NO.GS-
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION VI DATED 13/12/2019.	DELETTER
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 15/4/20.	DATED
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 27/4/20.	DATED

¶59

WPC.15575/2020

¶60

: 9 :

¶61

EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE 28/4/20.	COP	Y OF	THE LETTER	DATED
EXHIBIT P13	A TRUE 28/4/20.	COP	Y OF	THE LETTER	DATED
EXHIBIT P14	A TRUE DATED 2/	COPY O 5/20.	F THE	E-MAIL COMMUNI	CATION
EXHIBIT P15	A TRUE 12/7/20.	COPY	OF	THE PETITION	DATED
EXHIBIT P16	A TRUE 9/6/20.	COPY O	F THE	LETTER TO DGR	DATED
EXHIBIT P17:	A TRUE FOR THE	COPY MONTH	OF TH OF JA	E REGISTER OF NUARY, 2020.	WAGES
EXHIBIT P18:	A TRUE FOR THE	COPY MONTH	OF TH OF OC	E REGISTER OF TOBER, 2020.	WAGES
EXHIBIT P19:	A TRUE 12/0001/ 13/09/20	COPY 2016- 18.	OF THE GM-FTS	DPE O.M.NO.D -5410	PE-GM- DATED

¶62

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶63

EXHIBIT R1(a)	A TRUE COPY OF T	HE OM DATED 04.05.2020
EXHIBIT R1(b)	A TRUE COPY OF	THE LETTER ISSUED BY
	THE COMPANY DATE	D 16.07.2020 ADDRESSED
	TO THE DEPUTY RESPONDENT	DIRECTOR OF THE 3RD

¶64

ncd

Col.Augustine Mangatteparambil (Retd) v. the Unit Head

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Col.Augustine Mangatteparambil (Retd) v. the Unit Head

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.P Jose Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner

M/S Seahorse Ship Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India

C.T.Lukose Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Bindu.B Vs State of Kerala

T.a.Abdulla Vs the Special Tahasildar ( R R)

V.M.Ashraf Vs State of Kerala