Ocs/Vsnl Employees Co-Operative ... vs Uoi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4197 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of decision: 29th August, 2011

+                                     W.P.(C) 6273/2011

%          OCS/VSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE
           HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. (REGD.) & ANR.      .....Petitioners
                       Through: Dr. K.S. Chauhan with Mr. Ajit
                                 Kumar Ekka, Mr. Tej Singh Varun &
                                 Mr. Chand Kiran, Advocates

                                         Versus
           UOI & ORS.                                          ..... Respondents
                              Through:      Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Adv. for R-1 to 3.
                                            Mr. Akshay Ringe, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.         Whether reporters of Local papers may              Not necessary
           be allowed to see the judgment?

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?             Not necessary

3.         Whether the judgment should be reported            Not necessary
           in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner is a Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra

Government Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, the members whereof are

stated to be ex-employees as well as those still in employment of Videsh

Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL), now known as Tata Communications Ltd.

(TCL). The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 21st

June, 2011 of the respondent No.1 Ministry of Communications &

Information Technology, Government of India (GOI), rejecting the

representation of the petitioner Society for allotment of land, out of the

surplus land of the VSNL, for construction of a residential building for the

members of the petitioner Society. The petitioner also seeks mandamus

directing the respondents to allot 50 acres of land out of surplus land of

VSNL for the said purpose.

2. VSNL, then a Public Sector Undertaking was in the year 2002 subject

matter of disinvestment in pursuance of the policy of the GOI of

Disinvestment.

3. The petitioner claims to be entitled to such allotment for the reason

that VSNL had, in its Board Meeting held on 26th May, 1993 considered the

request of VSNL Employees Co-operative Housing Society, Chennai

(hereinafter called the Chennai Society) (members whereof were employees

at Chennai of GOI/VSNL) for allotment of 32.5 acres of surplus land at

Chennai and the GOI vide letter dated 19th January, 1995 had given approval

to VSNL, then a Public Sector Undertaking, for allotment of the said land to

the Chennai Society at market value. However, it appears that

notwithstanding the same, the land remained to be allotted to the Chennai

Society for the reason of a third party making a claim to the said land. The

said claim, in the nature of a suit, was dismissed on 9 th February, 2005. By

then, the right / share of the GOI in VSNL had been disinvested as aforesaid

and the allotment / delivery of possession in pursuance of the decision of

26th May, 1993 and approval thereof of 19th January, 1995 not made. The

Chennai Society then filed W.P.(C) No.12002/2006 in this Court; it appears

that there was some confusion as to who pursuant to the disinvestment was

the owner of the land which had been agreed to be given to the Chennai

Society i.e. whether the GOI or the VSNL control whereof had been taken

over by Tatas. VSNL filed an affidavit in W.P.(C) No.12002/2006 stating

that it had no objection to the land being allotted to the Chennai Society in

accordance with the commitment of 26th May, 1993; the GOI also stated that

it had no claim over the said land. This Court vide order dated 17 th May,

2007 in the said writ petition directed VSNL to transfer the land to the

Chennai Society.

4. However, an appeal being LPA No.1252/2007 was preferred by the

UOI against the direction aforesaid in W.P.(C) No.12002/2006 contending

that the land was not part of the assets transferred to Tatas and was kept

apart for vesting in a separate company and that VSNL was not the owner

but only the custodian of the surplus land. The Division Bench of this Court

however vide judgment dated 29th April, 2008 dismissed the said appeal

holding that there was a binding commitment by VSNL on 26th May, 1993

/19th January, 1995 to transfer the land to the Chennai Society and the

transfer could not take place immediately owing to the litigation by a third

party and the said commitment to transfer the land to the Chennai Society

would not be affected by the disinvestment in the year 2002 of the

shareholding of the GOI in VSNL. It was also held that the GOI could not

be permitted to change the stand as taken before the Single Judge.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that VSNL having agreed to

allot land out of its surplus land to a Housing Society for the benefit of its

employees cannot discriminate against other employees who have now

formed the petitioner Society and had similarly claimed land out of surplus

land of VSNL. The petitioner had in fact made a representation to the

respondents in this regard and earlier preferred W.P.(C) No.1868/2011

which was disposed of vide order dated 19th May, 2011 with a direction to

the respondents to dispose of the said representation.

6. The GOI vide its letter dated 21st June, 2011 impugned in this petition

rejected the said representation on the ground that the claim of the petitioner

Society which has come into existence in the year 2009 cannot be treated at

par with the claim of the Chennai Society which was allotted land in the year

1993.

7. The counsel for the petitioner inspite of repeated enquiry has not been

able to show any basis of the claim / right if any of the petitioner Society to

land from VSNL or from the GOI which was earlier holding the entire

shareholding of VSNL. His only argument is of that VSNL having earlier

agreed to provide land at Chennai to the Chennai Society cannot

discriminate against the petitioner and is required to provide land to the

petitioner Society also, out of the surplus land held at Delhi.

8. In my opinion, merely because the VSNL / GOI had earlier, nearly 18

years ago agreed to grant land at market rate out of the surplus land held by

VSNL at Chennai to a Society of its employees, cannot be a reason for

VSNL / GOI to be bound to provide such land to another Society with its

employees / ex-employees as members or for that matter to any other

employee. As aforesaid, there has been a sea change during the last 18

years. While then the VSNL was a fully owned Government company and a

Public Sector Undertaking, now it is controlled and managed by Tatas with

its name also having been changed. Even otherwise, the counsel for the

petitioner is unable to show that there is an obligation on an employer to

provide land for construction of residences of its employees.

9. The Supreme Court in UOI Vs. M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59 has

held that there can be no claim based on negative equality. Thus, in the

absence of a right, even if the GOI at one stage granted any benefit to one set

of employees, it cannot be held bound to provide the same benefit to other

employees.

10. There is thus no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 29, 2011 'gsr'