2013 (3) TMI 339 - HC - Indian Laws

Dismissal of Writ Petition Over VRS Amount Dispute Due to Privatization

The writ petition against a privatized entity seeking the difference in VRS amount based on revised pay scales and D.A. was dismissed by the Court on the ... Mandamus against a private body - maintainability of writ under Article 226 - public duty / monstrous situation exception to writ jurisdiction - application of precedential ratioMandamus against a private body - maintainability of writ under Article 226 - public duty / monstrous situation exception to writ jurisdiction - application of precedential ratio - Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus against the first respondent (a company which had been disinvested and was functioning under private management). - HELD THAT: - The Court examined whether the petitioners could invoke prerogative writ jurisdiction against the first respondent after its disinvestment and change to private management. The Bench considered the Apex Court's guidance that mandamus will not lie where rights are purely private and the management is a purely private body unless exceptional circumstances or a public duty make writ relief appropriate. The Court found that the same ratio was considered in earlier decisions of this Court (including Subban and subsequent orders) and that the submission based on Andi Mukta did not alter the conclusion because that ratio had been subsumed in earlier precedent (Rohtas Industries) and was in any event inapplicable on the facts. Applying the twofold exception test (rights of a public character or presence of a monstrous/exceptional situation), the Court concluded those exceptions were absent here: the petitioners' claims were essentially private in character and the company, post-disinvestment, was not shown to be discharging a public duty that would attract writ jurisdiction. Given these findings and the binding effect of earlier consistent decisions, the petition was held not maintainable and there was no need to decide merits. [Paras 13]Writ petition dismissed on the ground of maintainability; no order as to costs; liberty to pursue other remedies before appropriate forum.Final Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking mandamus for recalculation of VRS benefits on the ground that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not maintainable against the respondent company after disinvestment; the petitioners remain free to pursue alternate remedies. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private entity.2. Entitlement to the difference in VRS amount based on revised pay scales and D.A.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private entity:The petitioners, former employees of a public sector organization that was later privatized, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the first respondent to pay the difference in the VRS amount based on revised pay scales and D.A. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable since the first respondent was no longer a public sector entity after the disinvestment by the Government of India.The Court examined the maintainability of the writ petition in light of previous judgments, including the case of Andi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R.Rudani, which expanded the scope of mandamus to include private entities under certain conditions. However, the Court noted that the same principle was discussed in Rohtas Industries Limited v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union, where it was held that writs could be issued against private entities only in exceptional circumstances involving public duties.The Court referred to previous decisions, including W.P. No.6325 of 2004 and W.A. No.416 of 1998, which dealt with similar issues and concluded that writ petitions against the privatized entity were not maintainable. The Court emphasized that the privatization of the first respondent changed its status, making it a purely private body with no public duty. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.2. Entitlement to the difference in VRS amount based on revised pay scales and D.A.:The petitioners argued that they were entitled to the difference in the VRS amount based on the revised pay scales and D.A. effective from 01.01.1997. They contended that the first respondent's denial of this difference was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.The respondents countered that the VRS amount was a fixed sum calculated as per the terms of the Special Scheme dated 05.10.1988, which was in force when the petitioners opted for VR. They argued that the recalculation of the ex-gratia amount due to wage revision was not applicable and that the benefits promised under the original scheme were duly disbursed.The Court, having dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability, did not delve into the merits of the petitioners' claim regarding the difference in the VRS amount. The Court noted that even if the petitioners had a valid claim, the appropriate forum for such a claim would not be a writ petition against a private entity.Conclusion:The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, as the first respondent was no longer a public sector entity and did not have any public duty. The Court did not address the merits of the petitioners' claim for the difference in the VRS amount, leaving it open for the petitioners to pursue any other available remedies before the appropriate forum.