Disposed

The Management of Singareni Collieries Company Limited v. Vanga Vijaya Kumar

Telangana HC8 Jun 2021WA/202/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal against an order directing payment of wages for alternate employment. The High Court disposed of the appeal as not pressed after the Employer agreed to pay the awarded amount with interest within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed as not pressed; appellant granted four weeks to pay the awarded amount; 9% interest per annum applicable for delayed payment.

The Management of Singareni Collieries… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B, VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT APPE AL NO: 20F 019

¶6

writ Appeal under crause i 5 of the Letters patent preferred Against the order dated 26-07-2018 in WP.No..t6781 of 2OO3 on the file of the High Court.

¶7

Between:

¶8

l The Manaoement of singareni coflieries company Limited, Godavarikhani, xarimnasar"oiJiiict , neii6ien-teo bv iis ciiiii.in'r"-rii"rr,l?nasind

¶9

Bi3;?gi"o5r,

¶10

The Singareni coilieries company Limited, _ Godavarikhanr, Ramagundam, Karimnagar Disrrict, Representeo oy rtJcnlei'cJneriituilil;r,'nJi',i'si];ra", Area-l

¶11

The Karimnagar Singareni Districr, colieries Represented company by irs Limited, _Godavarikhani, trrteClcii Srffi;il;;;i', '! Ramagundam,'\s'| '| 'qvv'|^, ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS I TO 3

¶12

AND

¶13

Yqlg"^{Vijaya Kumar, (died) and his L.R.}

¶14

V.Vijaya, Wo,_Late V Vijayd Kumar, Aged about 56 years Occ. House Hold, RJo. H.No.4-3-33, Gaiura Rajah Basthi, Bh"adradrik-oiha'guu;Di;iri"t,i""iiijinu State.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶17

Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 26-07.2018 passed in w.p.No. 167g1 of 2003 pending disposar of the above Writ Appeal

¶18

Counsel for the Appeltants: SRt J. SREENTVASA RAO

¶19

SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES LIMITED

¶20

Counsel for Respondent: SRI A. K. JAyApRAKASH RAO

¶21

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

Item No.13

¶23

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTIC^{E HIMA KOHLI} AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC E B. YIJAYSE^{N REDDY}

¶24

WRIT APPEAL No.202 OF 2019

¶25

JUDGMENT:^(Per the Hon'ble^{theChief Justice Hima Kohlil}

¶26

The appellants (respondents in W.P.No.16781 of^{2003) are} aggrieved by the^judgment dated 26.07.2018^{passed by the learned} Single Judge in a writ petition filed by^{the respondentNo.1,since} deceased and subsequently substituted by his wife^{as his legalheir} vide order dated 17.07.2018, challenging the decision of the appellants of providing him ernployment on surf'ace, based on^a rnedical report dated 20.10.2000, declaring him unfit for the^post of Head Overman and directing him to work on the^post of a Telephone Operator Trainee (Surface). The respondents had sought^{directions to} the appellant to provide him the original posting as Head Ovetman with all consequential benefits and of protecting his^pay scale and salary from the year 1998 onwards.

¶27

In the impugned^judgment, it has been held that the appellant/ Company has been acting in a discriminatory manner from^{person to} person, in providing alternate employment on the surface. Noting that in simitar circumstances in W.P.No.13653 of^{2003,a judgmentwas} passed by a coordinate Bench on 28.06.2011, directing the appellant/Company herein to give alternate appointment to^the petitioner therein by duly protecting his pay scale and further,^paying him difference of wages during the period the employee had^worked

¶28

Page I of 4 ,uscruJ.,

¶29

tl.A.No.202 of 2019

¶30

in the lower category, the leamed Single Judge had allowed the subject writ petition filed by the respondents. However, keeping in mind that the respondent No. t had expired during the pendency of the petition and his legal representative had been brought on record, the appellant/Company was directed to pay the legal heirs, emoluments of a Head Overman by duly protecting his pay scale. The appellant/Company was also directed to pay the difference of wages during the period the deceased respondent had worked in the lower cadre i.e., Telephone Operator Trainee (Surface), for the period when he had been declared as medically unfit. The aforesaid amount was dilected to be paid within a period of two months. However, the said amount has been retained by the appellants till date though no stay order has been granted in its favour. In fact, the appellants have filed two appiications along with the present appeal, one for condonation of delay which was allowed and the other for stay of the impugned judgment wherein, no interim order was granted in its favour. 3. On perusing the impugned^judgment, we find that the leamed Single Judge was persuaded to allow the writ^{petitionon the basis} of the^judgment dated 28.06.2011 filed by another^{employeeof the} appellant/Company, similarly situated as^{the respondentNo.1 herein,} registered as W.P.No.13653 of 2003^{whereby,the appellant/Company} was directed to compute the wages^{payableto the legal heirsof the} deceased/petitioner therein by^{protecting his pay on the post on which} he was working till he was declared^{medically unfitand was called} upon to render services in the^post of^{a lowercategory and for the}

Page 2 of 4

Il/.A.No.202 of 2019

period during^{which he was not grantedan altemate employment'} The learned Single^{Judgehas deemed it appropriateto follow the} aforesaid decision^{inthe instant case and has directed the} appellant/Company^{herein to pay the emoluments on the post of} a Head Overman^{on which the deceasedrespondentNo'l had been} working by protecting his^{payscale,granting the differenceofwages} to him during the period during^{whichhe had been made to work on a} lower category post and for the period for which^{when he waskept} out of employment after being declared as medically unfit.

¶35

Pertinently, the above said^judgment was passed two years prior to passing of the impugned^judgment. On a pointed query addressed to leamed counsel for the appellants as to whether the appellants had challenged the judgment dated 25 .07 .201 6 passed in W.P.No. 19245 of 2012, he concedes that the said judgment was not taken in appeal. Instead, the appellant/ Company had duly complied with the said decision and released all the dues payable to the legal heirs of the deceased/petitioner in the captioned writ petition.

¶36

We have indicated to learned counsel for the appellants that we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment as it does not appear to suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. In fact, in our opinion while dismissing the present appeal, the appellant ought to be called upon to pay a reasonable amount towards interest on the withheld amount due and payable to the respondents, particularly since the said amount was not even secured and deposited in court.

¶37

W.A.No.202 of 2019

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

At this stage. learne d counsel lor the appellant/Companv states that the appellant is ready and willing to pay the principal amount ro the respondent in terms of the impugned judgment within four weeks, if the other side does not insist upon claiming the interest component on the principal amount.

¶40

Leamed counsel for the respondent states that he is agreeable to the said offer on the condition that the appellants pay the entire amount to the respondents in terms of the impugned judgment within four weeks from today, to which the other side is agreeable.

¶41

In view of the suggestion made by counsel for the appellant/Company having been accepted by learned counsel for the respondent, the present appeal is disposed ofas not pressed along with the pending applications, ifany, while granting the appellants a period of four weeks to release the entire amount due and payable to the respondent under the impugned judgment. In the event the said amount is not released within four weeks, the same shali carry interest al 9Yo per annum from the date the same became due and payable in terms of the impugned judgment, till realisation.

¶42

SD/.CH.VENKATESWARU LU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To, 1 The chairman and Managing Director, Management of singareni coflieries pgmnanV Ljmited, Godavari-kh5nt, Ramagundimi karimnagar OiEtrict. r ne untet General [,4anager,. Singareni Collieries- Company Limited, 3 fpdr"?fl9!1,^{Ramagundam,karimnag"arOiitrtci,-iamagundam'Are'a_l} (JooavanKnant, li9^..y,",9,9:l Hamagu^superi n dam, Karimnaoar tendent,^Singareni District.^{CoilierieiCompanyLimited,} 4. one cc to sri J. sreenivasa Rao, sc foi singareni coilieries Limited (opUC) 5, One CC to Sri A. K. Jayaprakash nao, AovoEitJ (OFUCj^{-- Erriir\vv\vr vvl} 6. Two CD Copies MBC

¶45

HIGH COURT

¶46

DATED:^0810612021

¶47

i.l E S rA
.J
o 2 3 JttN t0fl
D

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

WA.No.202^{of 2019}

¶50

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT APPEAL}