Dismissed

T. Prabhu Das v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC12 Apr 2010WP/13217/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandatory direction for the University to absorb petitioners into its service with continuity and arrears, holding no legal right existed to compel such absorption, especially since the land transfer was limited to vacant land only.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; no costs awarded; no direction issued to the University to absorb petitioners.

T. Prabhu Das Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.13217 OF 1999

¶3

DATED : 12.04.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

1. T. Prabhu Das and others. … Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

1. The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Dairy-I) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. … Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.13217 OF 1999

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

The petitioners herein claim to have been employed in Bacon Factory, one of the Units under A.P. State Meat and Poultry Corporation Limited (for short, ‘Corporation’). Aggrieved by the action of the Corporation in not regularizing their services, the petitioners had earlier filed W.P.No.11699 of 1996. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to regularize their services. W.A.No.1074 of 1997 preferred by the Corporation was dismissed. Pursuant thereto, the services of the petitioners were regularized. While so, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.41, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Dairy-I) Department, dated 30.04.1998 directing the Managing Director of the Corporation to bring the petitioners under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.16586 of 1998. While the said writ petition was pending, the 4^th respondent University made a request to transfer 39.35 acres of Bacon factory to it for the purpose of establishment of new college of Veterinary Science at Gannavaram. By letter dated

¶12

30.10.1998 the 4^th respondent University informed the State Government that the University was willing to take over all the employees of the Bacon factory, Gannavaram without any liabilities in terms of payment of arrears of pay/wages if any due to the employees prior to their transfer to the University. It is claimed by the petitioners that though the land belonging to Bacon factory was transferred to the 4^th respondent University as per its request, no further steps were taken to absorb the petitioners herein in the services of the 4^th respondent University. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 4^th respondent University to take the petitioners into service of the University as regular employees from the date of transfer/retrenchment by the Corporation with continuity of service and to arrange for payment of all arrears treating the petitioners as regular employees of the 4^th respondent University.

¶13

A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent University stating that pursuant to the orders issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 7.7.1999, 21.68 acres of vacant land of Bacon factory was handed over to the 4^th respondent University on payment of compensation as fixed by the competent authority. Accordingly, all the infrastructure including trees were removed and the land was handed over to the 4^th respondent. Even after that Bacon factory was in tact and it was functioning as usual. It is stated that the said factory was a commercial organization, under the control of the Corporation, whereas the 4^th respondent was a non-profit educational institution depending on the grant-in-aid. Though the fact that the University had expressed its willingness to absorb the employees of Bacon factory has not been disputed, it is explained that the said offer was made to absorb the employees of factory in the corresponding cadre available in the College of Veterinary Science provided the

¶14

entire land admeasuring 39.97 acres was transferred to the University free of cost. Since the Government had issued orders dated 7.7.1999 to hand over vacant land only to an extent of 21.68 acres on payment of market value, the University was not under an obligation to absorb the offer of the Bacon factory. It is further stated that the 4^th respondent University was not in a position to absorb any of the petitioners in the services of the University since it had no resources of its own.

¶15

Separate counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation stating that the services of the petitioners were regularized in terms of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.11699 of 1996. However, subsequently, pursuant to the orders vide G.O.Ms.No.41, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Dairy-I) Department, dated 30.04.1998, V.R.S. notices were served on all the petitioners on 30.06.1999. It is also stated that in the Cabinet Sub-Committee meeting held on 21.4.1999 it was recommended to privatise Bacon factory and to offer V.R.S. to all its employees. Accordingly, V.R.S. notices were issued to all employees of the Corporation including the petitioners with cut-off date as 15.7.1999.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. From the pleadings noticed above, it is clear that 21.68 acres of the land belonging to the Bacon factory was transferred to the 4^th respondent University for establishment of a College of Veterinary Science. Though an offer was made by the University to provide employment to absorb the employees of Bacon factory in the College of Veterinary Science, it is specifically pleaded in the counter-affidavit of the 4^th respondent University that the University was not obligated to do so since the land was transferred to the University only on payment of market value. The said fact could not be disputed by the petitioners.

¶17

The further plea of the 4^th respondent that the services of none of the petitioners were retrenched for establishment of the College of Veterinary Science also remained unrebutted. Moreover, W.P.No.16586 of 1998 filed by the petitioners challenging the voluntary retirement scheme extended to Bacon factory pursuant to the recommendation made by the Cabinet Sub-Committee was dismissed by this Court by order dated 18.04.2007.

¶18

Viewed from any angle, no case could be made out by the petitioners to show that they acquired any legal right to compel the 4^th respondent to absorb them in the College of Veterinary Science. As a matter of fact, the 4^th respondent University has been bifurcated long back and the Veterinary College of Science is not under the control of the 4^th respondent University as on today. However no steps have been taken by the petitioners to implead the College of Veterinary Science as a party-respondent.

¶19

For the aforesaid reasons, the Mandamus as prayed for cannot be issued at this stage. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs.

¶20

_____________ G. ROHINI, J.

¶21

Dt. 12.04.2010 gbs

T. Prabhu Das v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Prabhu Das v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

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

G.V.S. Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Ramachandra Rao, Vs Varakolu Janardhan Rao

B.T.Purna Kumar Vs The District Employment Officer

P. Rajani D/o. Gangaraju, Vs Smt. Rachal Cheterjee, IAS

C.G.Daivasahavasam, Vs The Commissioner of Director of School Education

Sri Yala Asirayya , Asiri Appalaraju, Vs The Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh

Fatima Bee ( died by LRs ) Vs A.S. Ibrahim Sab ( died )