Madras High Court
Velladathan vs Uti – Infrastructure Technology & on 29 June, 2021
W.A.(MD).No.1623 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.06.2021
CORAM:
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
The Hon'ble Mrs.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD).No.1623 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD).No.11792 of 2018
Velladathan ...Appellant
Vs.
1. UTI – Infrastructure Technology &
Services Ltd.,
(A Government of India Company)
Plot No.3, Sector – 11, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai.
2. UTI – Infrastructure Technology &
Services Ltd.,
(A Government of India Company)
Rep. by its Branch Manager
No.86, New Jail Road,
Madurai 625016. ....Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act,
to allow this Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.
(MD).No.1156 of 2011 dated 31.01.2018 on the file of this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1623 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.K.Appadurai
For Respondents : Mr.Y.Kavitha
for Giridharan,
for R2.
R1 – No appearance
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
Heard Mr.K.Appadurai, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Ms.V.Kavitha, learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent.
2. The appellant is the writ petitioner and he is aggrieved by the
dismissal of W.P(MD).No.1156 of 2011 dated 31.01.2018. The appellant
sought for direction upon the respondents to regularize his services by
considering his representation dated 11.01.2011. The learned Writ Court
had dismissed the writ petition by placing reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and
others vs. Umadevi (3) and others [2006 4 SCC 1]. Challenging the
correctness of the order, the appellant is before us.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1623 of 2018
3. Though we are in agreement with the ultimate conclusion
arrived at by the learned Writ Court, in our considered view, the decision
in Umadevi (3) (supra) cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances
of the case as the prayer sought for, though appears to be innocuous, the
appellant seeks for permanent absorption in the respondent organisation.
Therefore, we are required to see, whether it is feasible and any relief can
be granted.
4. The admitted facts are that the appellant was appointed on
02.05.1998 as Assistant of Probation in the Unit Trust of India,
subsequently regularised. The Unit Trust of India Act was repealed in the
year 2002. Thereafter, the appellant became an employee under the Asset
Management Company of UTI. However, the said company was a
separate legal entity. The appellant continued to work in the said
organization till 21.10.2003, when he was offered an action to voluntarily
separate from the employment, called as Voluntary Separation Scheme
(VSS). The appellant submitted his application after serving for 15 years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1623 of 2018
as on 26.09.2003 and he was relieved on 31.10.2003 and was paid a sum
of Rs.7,82,640/- towards settlement. Thereafter, in the year 2003, a
Circular dated 12.08.2003 was issued to selected persons for contractual
arrangement, depending on the position for which they were selected and
they will be paid consolidated monthly amount. The appellant applied for
such contractual appointment and he was called for interview and
subsequently appointed as Executive on contract basis by offer letter
dated 04.11.2003. The conditions of such contractual arrangement are
spelt out in paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents, which would clearly show that there is no vested right for
the appellant to continue as a contractual employee or for claiming
regularisation. The appellant's contract was extended for a further period
from 24.11.2006 to 31.12.2006 and subsequently from 01.01.2007 to
31.03.2007, after which, there was no further extension. Further to be
noted, prior to 2006 apart from regular employees, there were
Executives, who were working under Voluntary Separate Scheme (VSS)
on contractual basis through Man Power Agency. During 2006, the
respondents took a decision to regularize the services of the employees of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1623 of 2018
all the three categories and a circular in this regard was issued vide
circular dated 27.04.2006. However, the respondents had to undertake a
process for identification of persons, who would be eligible for such
regularisation. Without which, such regularization would have been
termed as 'arbitrary and unreasonable'. Accordingly, a scheme was
framed by which, the suitability of the candidates was assessed by
written examination followed by the viva and personal interview and
then the result would be declared. In paragraph 14 of the counter
affidavit, the grades secured by the appellant has been set out and we find
from the grades that the appellant secured 'C'. Therefore, he would not
offer a position.
5. Admittedly, the non-selection of the appellant has not been put
in challenge. Apart from that, we note that UTIISL had a vendor, who
was providing Man Power Services for the Company in the southern
region. The appellant submitted his application to the said Man Power
Agency for providing employment and they had engaged in from
19.04.2010 and posted him at Madurai Branch on contract basis along
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1623 of 2018
with other candidates. The salaries were paid by the Man Power Agency
and obviously, such employment cannot have any employer-employee
relationship between the appellant and the respondents.
6. Thus, the above facts would clearly show that the relief sought
for regularisation cannot be granted by any stretch of imagination.
Therefore, we agree with the ultimate conclusion of the learned Writ
Court. But for the reasons assigned by us in the preceding paragraphs,
this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
29.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kmm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1623 of 2018
To
1. UTI – Infrastructure Technology &
Services Ltd.,
(A Government of India Company)
Plot No.3, Sector – 11, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai.
2. UTI – Infrastructure Technology &
Services Ltd.,
(A Government of India Company)
Rep. by its Branch Manager
No.86, New Jail Road,
Madurai 625016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).No.1623 of 2018
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
kmm
Order made in
W.A.(MD).No.1623 of 2018
Dated:
29.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
