TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of Writ Petition Over VRS Amount Dispute Due to Privatization</h1> <h3>S. Babu Versus The Managing Director Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd.</h3> S. Babu Versus The Managing Director Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd. - TMI 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
