Wg Cdr Gopalakrishnan Nair Jayachandran (Retd) v. Union of India

Kerala HC7 Oct 2021WP(C)/17191/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an ex-serviceman sponsored by DGR to provide security services, was not availed of by the employer due to a service charge dispute. Suing for an opportunity lost, he requested a direction to the Joint Director to consider his representation and pass orders after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the fourth respondent to consider Ext.P11 representation and pass orders within one month after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Wg Cdr Gopalakrishnan Nair Jayachandran… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 15TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 17191 OF 2021

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

WG CDR GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR JAYACHANDRAN (RETD) AGED 59 YEARS S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, VRA 106(B), TC 7/1329(1), HAREKRISHNA, VETTAMUKKU, THIRUMALA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695006.

¶6

BY ADVS. MATHEW KURIAKOSE J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR) MONI GEORGE

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, (DEPARTMENT OF EXSERVICEMEN WELFARE), NIRMAN BHAVAN, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110011.

¶9

2 DIRECTORATE GENERAL RE-SETTLEMENT(DGR), R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-110022. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶10

3 THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL RE-SETTLLEMENT (DGR), R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-110022. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶11

¶12

W.P.(C) No.17191 of 2021

¶13

4 THE JOINT DIRECTOR(EMP), (KERALA REGION),DIRECTORATE GENERAL RESETTLLEMENT (DGR),R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-110022.

¶14

5 NAVAL PHYSICAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC LABORATORY(NPOL), THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682021. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶15

6 THE DIRECTOR NAVAL PHYSICAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC LABORATORY(NPOL), THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682021.

¶16

7 THE STORES OFFICER, NAVAL PHYSICAL AND OCEANOGRAPHIC LABORATORY(NPOL), THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682021.

¶17

SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

W.P.(C) No.17191 of 2021

¶21

W.P.(C) No.17191 of 2021

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Petitioner is an Ex-serviceman providing security services to the Central Government Public Sector

¶24

Undertakings/Enterprises on the basis of the sponsorship of the second respondent, the Directorate General Re-settlement, Government of India (the DGR). Though the petitioner was

¶25

sponsored for providing security services to the fifth respondent on 03.05.2021, the services of the petitioner was not availed by the fifth respondent on the ground that he claimed 14% service charge. It is stated that the service charge to be levied by persons like the petitioner is fixed by the DGR and in terms of the fixation made by the DGR, the service charge that could be levied upto 13.05.2021 was 14%. The

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C) No.17191 of 2021

¶28

petitioner relies on Ext.P7 clarification issued by the DGR to substantiate the said stand. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that there was some confusion as to the service charge that could be levied and it is on account of the said reason that the petitioner claimed 14%, and by the time Ext.P7 clarification was issued, a decision has already been taken by the fifth respondent. Insofar as the fifth respondent has already availed the services of another, the petitioner does not seek any relief against the fifth respondent. At the same time, he contends that insofar as he has been sponsored by the DGR for rendering services to the fifth respondent, he lost one opportunity to provide service and since he could not render services to the fifth respondent for reasons not attributable to him, he is entitled to be compensated. Ext.P11 is the representation preferred by the petitioner before the fourth respondent in this regard. The limited prayer made by

¶29

W.P.(C) No.17191 of 2021

¶30

¶31

the petitioner, when this matter was taken up, in the circumstances, was for a direction to the fourth respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 representation.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶33

also the learned Central Government Counsel.

¶34

Having regard to the case aforesaid of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the fourth respondent to take a decision on Ext.P11 representation, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within one month. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner

¶35

shall produce a copy of this judgment for compliance before the fourth respondent.

¶36

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶37

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C) No.17191 of 2021

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17191/2021

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 09.07.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶43

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 16.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶44

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 13.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶45

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED 13.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR OPERATION/FUNCTIONING OF DGR EMPANELLED EX-SERVICEMEN (ESM)SECURITY SERVICES.

¶46

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2021 IN C.M.APPL.18674/2021 IN W.P.(C)NO.5920 OF 2021 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI.

¶47

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CORRIGENDUM NOTIFICATION NO.28(75)/2020D(RES-1) DATED 23.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH WAGE STRUCTURE PUBLISHED AS APPENDIX D THEREIN

¶48

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION FOR SERVICE CHARGES (DGR SECURITY AGENCY SCHEME) DATED 30.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶49

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION DATED 20.05.2021 FOR SUPPLY OF SECURITY GUARDS TO NPOL

¶50

W.P.(C) No.17191 of 2021

¶51

¶52

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SPONSORSHIP COMMUNICATION DATED 03.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶53

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE EMPANELMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 25.03.2021 OF THE PETITIONER WITH THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF RESETTLEMENT

¶54

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶55

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 26.07.2021 BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR AND JOINT DIRECTORS OF THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL RESETTLEMENT (DGR) WITH THE OFFICIALS OF THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, CORPORATE SECURITY DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

¶56

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶57

ANNEXURE R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ACTUAL WAGE STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO EXT.P6

Wg Cdr Gopalakrishnan Nair Jayachandran (Retd) v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wg Cdr Gopalakrishnan Nair Jayachandran (Retd) v. Union of India

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

Fayas Saheer Vs the Tahsildar

V.K. Abdul Rahim Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

K.P. Leena Vs Kerala Financial Enterprises Limited

Jaseela Asharaf Vs the Manager

Babu P Vs the District Telecom Committee

Kizhuvilam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 2405 Vs the Incident Commander & Tahsildar