Allowed

U.L.N.Varaprasad v. The Managing Director

Telangana HC1 Mar 2013WP/20118/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a writ petition challenging a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and the withholding of terminal benefits. It held the corporate successor liable to pay dues and salary for the relevant period, noting the lack of legal proceedings to substantiate alleged misappropriation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to pay VRS benefits and salary from 01-01-2000 to 15-03-2000 without deduction for unproven alleged misappropriation.

U.L.N.Varaprasad Vs The Managing Director — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶2

Writ Petition No.20118 of 2000

¶3

Date: 01-3-2013

¶4

Between V.L.N.Varaprasad and another

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

and

¶7

The Managing Director, A.P. State Meat and Poultry Corporation Limited, Sanatnagar, Hyderabad; and 4 others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Writ Petition No.20118 of 2000

¶10

Order:

¶11

The petitioners seek for a Writ of certiorari to quash proceedings bearing No.197/1997, dated

¶12

31-12-1999, issued by the 4^th respondent and to absorb the petitioners in the 5^th respondent-Corporation. The 1^st respondent is Andhra Pradesh State Meat and Poultry Corporation Limited. It has become defunct.

¶13

The 5^th respondent-Andhra Pradesh Meat Development Corporation Limited has been constituted as a Corporation succeeding the 1^st respondentCorporation.

¶14

2. The 1^st petitioner was appointed on 02-4-1988 as U.D. Accountant in the 1^st respondent-Corporation. The 2^nd petitioner was appointed as Chick Sexer. The 1^st and the 2^nd petitioners put up 12 years and

¶15

22 years of service with the 1^st respondent. In view of Ordinance 25 of 1996, which was subsequently legislated as Act 14 of 1997, total prohibition of absorption of public sector employees into public service came into force. The

¶16

1^st respondent introduced a Voluntary Retirement

¶17

Scheme (VRS, for short) on 30-6-1999. Coercing the employees declaring those employees who do not opt out for VRS would be terminated through Staff Regulation Act, applications for VRS were forcibly obtained on 31-121999 from the petitioners and others. In the process, the benefits of PRC, 1999 were also denied to the applicants of VRS.

¶18

3. While things stood thus, the 1^st respondent deducted certain amounts from the terminal benefits of the petitioners and sent cheques to the petitioners towards VRS benefits. The petitioners were not willing for voluntary retirement, much less deduction of amounts from the benefits due to them under the VRS. The petitioners continued to attend the office till 15-3-2000 albeit the VRS shows the date of retirement as 31-12-1999. The 1^st respondent started engaging workers on contract basis from 16-3-2000.

¶19

4. The main grievance of the petitioners is three fold, viz., (1) they never agreed for VRS and that the VRS does not apply to them, (2) withholding of certain amounts due to the petitioners by the employer without proper explanation is illegal and (3) a condition in the VRS that the employees who took retirement under the VRS are not eligible for re-employment in any Government Departments, Public Sector Undertakings, Cooperative Institutions and other Undertakings is ultra vires. The

¶20

petitioners consequently sought for the quashment of the proceedings dated 31-12-1999 issued by the 4^th respondent.

¶21

5. The 1^st respondent contended that in view of the restructured programme of the 1^st respondentCorporation, it was decided to implement VRS to the employees of the Corporation. Both the petitioners opted out for VRS on 31-12-1999 on their own volition. The 5^th respondent-Andhra Pradesh Meat Development Corporation Limited is presently functioning in place of the 1^st respondent-Corporation. No employee who took VRS from the 1^st respondent was engaged in the new Corporation. Certain ministerial staff discharging under VRS however are engaged in the new Corporation on contract basis only. The petitioners indeed were allowed to work in the Regional Poultry Farm (RPF), Chittoor, on contract basis up to 31-3-2000 for the updating of registers, ledgers etc. The 5^th respondent and the Andhra Pradesh Live Stock Development Agency are not successors of the 1^st respondent. The petition is devoid of merits and is to be dismissed.

¶22

6. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, explained that while the 1^st petitioner joined as a U.D. Accountant in the office of the 4^th respondent, the

¶23

2^nd petitioner joined with the 4^th respondent about

¶24

10 years prior to the 1^st petitioner and that the

¶25

1^st respondent introduced VRS on 30-6-1999. It is the fundamental case of the petitioners that the petitioners were forced to opt out for VRS under threat and duress. He also contended that the 1^st petitioner immediately issued notice that the VRS was forcibly brushed upon him and that he was not liable to the VRS.

¶26

The petitioners further contended that they continued in service till 15-3-2000 and that the salary was not paid to them from 01-01-2000 to 15-3-2000.

¶27

7. They claim that Clause (8) of Rule 7 of the VRS dated 23-01-1996 is ultra vires. Clause (8) of Rule 7 reads:

¶28

“8. Employees retire under VRS shall not be eligible for re-employment in any Govt. departments, PSUs, Coop. Institutions and other State Undertakings. A formal undertaking will be obtained by the organisation in this regard for the employee availing voluntary retirement.”

¶29

It is their contention that such an embargo is violative of various provisions of the Constitution.

¶30

8. So far as the viresness of Clause (8) of Rule 7 of the VRS is concerned, it has no relevance in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioners that they tried to apply for employment in some State Government Undertakings or other and that their candidature was

¶31

rejected on the ground that they are retired employees under the VRS. Consequently, I consider that the viresness of this clause cannot be called in question in this writ petition. I therefore decline to examine this issue and hold that the claim of the petitioners that Clause (8) of Rule (7) of the VRS is ultra vires is liable to be rejected on the ground that it does not fall for consideration in this case.

¶32

9. Regarding the amounts due to the 1^st petitioner that were withheld by the respondents, it is admitted that the amount withheld is Rs.58,888/-. Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent-Corporation, pointed out that the 5^th respondent is ready to pay the amounts due to the petitioners including the withheld amounts except for those amounts which were withheld towards misappropriation. When the 5^th respondent contends that amounts of the 1^st petitioner were withheld towards misappropriation committed by him, he shall not be entitled to these amounts if the amounts were withheld legally. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no proceedings were initiated against the 1^st petitioner towards the alleged misappropriation and that the respondents consequently are not entitled to withhold any monies due to the 1^st petitioner.

¶33

No proceedings are placed before me by the 5^th respondent to show that the monies due to the 1^st petitioner were withheld on account of the proceedings initiated for the misappropriation of funds by the 1^st petitioner. I therefore consider that withholding of the monies of the 1^st petitioner by the 5^th respondent is unjust. The 5^th respondent is liable to pay the amounts due to the petitioners.

¶34

10. Regarding the alleged coercive consent of the petitioners for the VRS, the petitioners submitted a representation as late as on 24-02-2000 to the Principal Secretary to the Government, that they were not willing for the VRS. If the claim of the petitioners that they were coerced and that the willingness for VRS was obtained from them under duress, the petitioners would have reacted immediately on or after 31-12-1999 and would not have waited till 24-02-2000.

¶35

The representation dated 24-02-2000 would appear to be an after-thought of the petitioners. I therefore cannot accept the contention of the petitioners that they did not opt out for VRS and that their consent was obtained by force by their employer.

¶36

11. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed in part without costs, directing the 5^th respondent-Corporation to pay the amounts due to the

¶37

petitioners under the VRS as well as the salary or remuneration, as the case may be, from 01-01-2000 till 15-3-2000 without deducting any monies from

¶38

the amounts due to the 1^st petitioner towards misappropriation allegedly committed by him. The 5^th respondent shall settle the claims of the petitioners within 8 (eight) weeks from today.

¶39

__________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J. 01^st March, 2013. Ak

¶40

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶41

Writ Petition No.20118 of 2000 (P.D. Order)

¶42

01^st March, 2013. (Ak)

U.L.N.Varaprasad v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.L.N.Varaprasad v. The Managing Director

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

Rajesh Bajaj Vs The State of A.P.

Ambati Ja yaramaiah, Vs The Commissioner

Tanguturi Lakshminarasimham Vs Jonnalagadda Venkata Ramaiah and 9

Y. Jaya Ranga Reddy, Vs B. Venkata Ramudu

B.Krishna Murthy Kurnool Vs M.Rama Swamy Kurnool

Gangu Sanjeevaiah Vs M.Krishna