Col.Augustine Mangatteparambil ... vs The Unit Head
2021 Latest Caselaw 2195 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

  WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/30TH POUSHA,1942

                   WP(C).No.15575 OF 2020(V)

PETITIONER:
              COL.AUGUSTINE MANGATTEPARAMBIL (RETD.),
              AGED 60 YEARS, PROPRIETOR,M/S.AUGUSTINE
              MANGATTEPARAMBIL SECURITY AGENCY,
              DOOR.NO.67/3078,PULIKKAL ESTATE,
              BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 918.

              BY ADV. SRI.J.G.SYAMNATH

RESPONDENTS:
      1      THE UNIT HEAD, M/S.HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES(INDIA)
             LTD.,
             UDYOGAMANDAL, ERANKULAM-683 501.

      2       THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
              M/S.HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES(INDIA) LTD.,
              2ND FLOOR, CORE-6, SCOPE COMPLEX 7,
              LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.

      3       DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES,
              PUBLIC ENTERPRISES BHAVAN, CLOCK NO.14,
              CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.

      4       DIRECTOR(CHEM -1), MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND
              FERTILIZERS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.

      5       THE DIRECTOR GENERAL(RESTEELEMENT),
              GOVENMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
              DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF RESETTLEMENT,
              WEST BLOCK-IV, R.K.PURAK, NEW DELHI-110 066.

              R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
              R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
              R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
              R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
              R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
              R3-R5 BY SRI.M.N.MANMADAN, CGC
              ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WPC.15575/2020
                                  :2 :




                         JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 20th day of January, 2021

The petitioner, a retired Colonel from Indian Army,

has approached this Court seeking to command respondents

1 and 2 to forthwith award the work order to the petitioner, in

pursuance of Ext.P7 sponsorship letter and to declare that

respondents 1 and 2 cannot award the contract to a Non-DGR

sponsored agency, violating the existing rules of the

Government of India.

2. The petitioner states that he is a retired Colonel of

Indian Army and he is operating a Security Agency under a

Scheme of the Director General of Resettlement (DGR),

Ministry of Defence. Under the Scheme, retired

commissioned officers are given self employment opportunity

by allotting a security agency to operate for a limited period of WPC.15575/2020

time. The period is limited to 3 years or 60 years of age.

Exts.P1 and P1(A) are Office Memoranda governing such

agencies.

3. The 1st respondent, Unit Head of M/s. Hindustan

Insecticides (India) Ltd., which is a Central Public Sector

Undertaking, invited tenders for engaging security personnel

in their establishment. The petitioner submitted his tender as

per Ext.P9. According to the petitioner, the Tender

Committee declared that the petitioner's agency is eligible for

the contract. The petitioner's grievance is that in spite of

being the senior most eligible agency and in spite of

completing all formalities, the 1st respondent has not placed

any work order to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner submitted letters and

representations to the respondents requesting to award work

to him. However, the representations submitted by the

petitioner were not positively responded to. Due to inordinate

delay on the part of the 1 st respondent in placing work orders,

the petitioner is being denied the benefit of the Scheme. The WPC.15575/2020

petitioner has requested the DGR to extend his period by one

year.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit.

Respondents 1 and 2 stated that the Company has not

issued any Work Contract/LoI/Contract/Sponsorship in favour

of the petitioner. Merely choosing the petitioner as an eligible

agency for the work does not bestow any right to the

petitioner.

6. Respondents 1 and 2 further submitted that they

installed CCTVs in their premises and formed a Committee to

consider reduction of number of security personnel. The

Company also decided to explore the possibility of hiring of

security agency of ex-servicemen facility through Government

e-Marketplace (GeM) as per the Department of Public

Enterprises (DPE) Circular. The DPE Circular instructed that

all PSUs to make procurement/services through GeM.

Respondents 1 and 2 therefore sought clarifications from

Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Industries,

Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Government of WPC.15575/2020

India. Clarifications are awaited. It is under the said

circumstance that no work orders were placed.

7. The Central Government Counsel representing

respondents 3 to 5 pointed out that the petitioner has crossed

60 years of age. Moreover, the period of empanelment by

the Directorate General of Resettlement as evidenced by

Ext.P6, stands expired on 24.05.2020. Therefore, there is no

point in granting any relief to the petitioner since the petitioner

cannot be now given work orders due to the expiry of the

empanelment period.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and

2 and learned Central Government Counsel representing

respondents 3 to 5.

9. The fact that respondents 1 and 2 have selected

the petitioner for award of work, is not disputed. The stand of

respondents 1 and 2 is that in order to reduce their

expenditure, they sought the possibility of getting security

personnel through GeM. No work orders are issued to the WPC.15575/2020

empanelled agencies, awaiting clarifications from

Government of India. From the pleadings available in the writ

petition, it is evident that the petitioner is seeking relief on the

basis of his empanelment by DGR. But, the period of

empanelment is already over.

10. The petitioner himself has stated in paragraph 1 of

the writ petition that the period of DGR empanelment is

limited to 3 years or up to 60 years of age. Ext.P6

empanelment certificate produced by the petitioner would

show that his period of empanelment ended on 24.05.2020.

The writ petition itself is seen filed after the expiry of the

period of empanelment. Therefore, a direction cannot be

given to respondents 1 and 2 in this writ petition, to issue

work orders to the petitioner.

11. The petitioner would contend that he was selected

for award of works before the expiry of his DGR empanelment

and respondents 1 and 2 could have given work orders to him

earlier, failure of which has resulted in monetary loss to the

petitioner. Assuming that the argument is tenable, the claim WPC.15575/2020

of the petitioner would be a monetary claim involving disputed

questions of fact and this Court cannot adjudicate the same

in writ proceedings.

In the circumstances, this Court finds that no relief

can be given to the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ

petition is therefore dismissed. The petitioner will be at liberty

to resort to any appropriate legal proceedings for any

monetary claim against respondents 1 and 2, if he is so

advised.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/20.01.2021 WPC.15575/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.M NO.4(20)/DS(RES/93 DATED 4/2/1994.

EXHIBIT P1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.28(3) 2012 -D (RES-1) DATED 9/7/2012.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREMEN COURT OF INDIA IN WPC NO.426/2010 DATED 30/8/2017.

EXHIBIT P3        A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER              OF THE
                  MINISTRY   OF   DEFENCE   VIDE         NO.1(2)
                  2011/D(RES-1) DATED 22/3/2018.

EXHIBIT P4        A TRUE COPY OF THE OM          F.NO.DPE-GM-
                  08/0001/2017-GM-FTS-8095              DATED
                  16/5/2018.

EXHIBIT P5        A TRUE COPY OF THE RETIREMENT ORDER OF
                  THE PETITIONER DATED 23/5/2013.

EXHIBIT P6        A   TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   EMPANELMENT
                  CERTIFICATE DATED 10/4/2019.

EXHIBIT P7        A TRUE COPY OF THE SPONSORSHIP LETTER
                  DATED 8/11/2019.

EXHIBIT P8        A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER               NO.GS-
                  4/29(VII)20 DATED 28/11/2019.

EXHIBIT P9        A TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION VIDELETTER
                  DATED 13/12/2019.

EXHIBIT P10       A TRUE      COPY   OF   THE   LETTER     DATED
                  15/4/20.

EXHIBIT P11       A TRUE      COPY   OF   THE   LETTER     DATED
                  27/4/20.
 WPC.15575/2020




EXHIBIT P12       A TRUE      COPY    OF    THE    LETTER    DATED
                  28/4/20.

EXHIBIT P13       A TRUE      COPY    OF    THE    LETTER    DATED
                  28/4/20.

EXHIBIT P14       A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION
                  DATED 2/5/20.

EXHIBIT P15       A TRUE COPY        OF    THE    PETITION   DATED
                  12/7/20.

EXHIBIT P16       A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO DGR DATED
                  9/6/20.

EXHIBIT P17:      A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF WAGES
                  FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2020.

EXHIBIT P18:      A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF WAGES
                  FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2020.

EXHIBIT P19:      A TRUE COPY OF THE DPE O.M.NO.DPE-GM-
                  12/0001/2016-GM-FTS-5410        DATED
                  13/09/2018.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R1(a)     A TRUE COPY OF THE OM DATED 04.05.2020


EXHIBIT R1(b)     A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY

THE COMPANY DATED 16.07.2020 ADDRESSED TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

ncd