Telangana High Court
WP/5572/1999 of Manappakam Swachannam Sreedharan, Vs The Managing Director, on 29 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5572 of 1999 Between: Manappakam Swachannam Sreedharan, S/o. Late:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 5572 of 1999
Between:
Manappakam Swachannam Sreedharan, S/o. Late: M.S.Adhivarahan,Sudhanagar Unit, Parigi Post, Hindupur, Anantapur District, R/o. C/o.Mothukuri Chenchiratanam Complex, Darga Road, Naidupet, NelloreDistrict.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Managing Director, The Nizams Sugars Limited, Fateh Maidan Road, Khairatabad, Fateh Maidan Road, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.
2 The Chair-Person, M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Limited, Registered Office: B.C.105, Povlock Road, Off: Javelock Road, Camp- Belgaum, Karnataka. Belgaum, Karnataka.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction(s) essentially in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 herein to allow thePetitioner herein to retire under Voluntary Retirement Scheme under theRespondent No.1 with all consequential benefits and attendant benefitsincluding arrears of salaries and all amounts that will be payable to thepetitioner under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme holding the action ofthe Respondents herein in not allowing the Petitioner herein to retireunder Voluntary Retirement Scheme either by the Respondent No.1 or bythe Respondent No.2 for no fault of the Petitioner herein as illegal,arbitrary, discriminatory, without jurisdiction, irrational, illogical, void-ab-initio and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India andpass such other Order or Orders as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit,proper and necessary in the circumstances of the Case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.THOOMSRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.R.SRIDHARAN
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to directrespondent Nos.1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to retire underVoluntary Retirement Scheme with all consequential benefits.
The petitioner was appointed as Grade III Clerk in respondentNo.1. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working asStores Supervisor. In order to pursue his higher studies, he gotrelieved on leave by continuing his lien in respondent No.1organisation. Later, in pursuance of a memorandum ofunderstanding, respondent No.1 agreed to sell the factory torespondent No.2 and pursuant thereto, a registered sale deed wasexecuted by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 on 24-08-1998.
On the eve of sale of the factory, respondent No.1 prepared ascheme for voluntary retirement of its employees and respondentNo.2 implemented the same. There is a difference of opinionbetween respondents 1 and 2 as to whether the petitioner’s namefigured in the list sent by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 forgiving effect to the scheme of voluntary retirement. While respondentNo.1 took the stand that the name of the petitioner did in fact figure inthe list sent by it, respondent No.2 denied the said claim.
Be that as it may, it has come out at the hearing thatrespondent No.2 also sold the factory to a third party. RespondentNo.2 has taken the plea that as it has purchased the property fromrespondent No.1 under a private sale, no writ lies against it, evenassuming that it has not followed the list forwarded by respondentNo.1 in giving voluntary retirement to the erstwhile employees ofrespondent No.1.
Conclusion
In my considered view, the writ petition is liable to bedismissed on two grounds viz., that the factory is no longer in thehands of either respondent No.1 or respondent No.2. Secondly, asrightly pointed out by Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned counsel forrespondent No.2, the sale was through a private negotiation and nottraceable to any statutory enactment. Respondent No.2, admittedly,is a private party which does not answer the description of the stateunder Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, evenassuming that respondent No.2 has not complied with therequirement of the scheme framed by respondent No.1, the petitionercannot seek enforcement of his purported right by invoking the publiclaw remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the petitionerfree to avail any other remedy available to him in private law field toclaim relief against respondent No.2. No costs.
-----------------------------
29[th] December, 2008
SKM
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY