IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 2675 of 2009() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16887/2009 DATED 17/09/2009 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 IN THE WP -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICER ,301,STATE MAN HOUSE, BHARATHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-1. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER BSNL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BSNL, MALAPPURAM (SSA). 4. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. MR.C.S.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN THE WP/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN THE WPC: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. SUNSHIV SECURITY SERVICE ROOM NO.1, BUILDING NO.427/E, KOLAVELI SHOPPING CENTRE, SWARAJ NAGAR, KAKKANADE POST, COCHIN REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.LT.CDR. N.C.SEKHARAN (RTD) 2. M. PADMANABHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR 'PADMAM' , PATHAKKARA, PERUTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST WA.No. 2675 of 2009 3. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATION, NEW DELHI. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RE-SETTLEMENT MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WEST BLOCK 4, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI R3 & R4 BY ADV. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G OF INDIA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, ALONG WITH WA NO. 2812 OF 2009 AND WA NO. 2816 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.Raman, Ag.C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A.Nos.2675, 2812 & 2816 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.These appeals are by the BSNL and the Government of India. They challenge the judgment of the learned single Judge deciding writ petitions filed by different security service agents. 2.Treating W.A.No.2816 of 2009 arising from WP(C). 18236 of 2009 as the lead case, we have heard learned counsel for BSNL and the writ petitioners, who are among the respondents in these appeals. 3.The Government of India introduced a scheme through the Director General of Re-settlement (DGR) to engage ex-servicemen as security guards WA2675/09 & con.cases -: 2 :- and to enable retired military officers to run the agencies engaging such security guards for exclusive allotment of security service coverage work in Central PSUs. The Government of India also directed the PSUs to engage only such security agencies. Wages were to be paid as per the guidelines drawn up by the DGR. 4.Some of such agencies sponsored by the DGR moved this Court filing O.P.14702/2001 and connected cases complaining violation of DGR guidelines by the BSNL and also by certain other PSUs. By judgment dated 28.11.2003, this Court held that the agencies under the Government of India are bound to follow the guidelines issued by the Ministry as regards the engagement of security service personnel through DGR sponsored security agencies. The wages were also to be paid in terms of the rates notified by the DGR. 5.The writ petitioners were sponsored by the DGR for security service coverage work under BSNL and WA2675/09 & con.cases -: 3 :- an agreement was executed for different periods of two years each. They were recommended for extension. However, re-sponsorship and re- allotment was not granted. The agencies, therefore, moved this Court. They continued to provide security service coverage to the establishments of BSNL beyond the date actually covered by the agreement. This was on the strength of the interim orders issued by this Court. Ultimately, this Court held that there was no merit in not sponsoring the agencies. Resultantly, directions were issued to continue with the agency till the particular period is over. That was affirmed by the Division Bench. In terms of that, agreements were also executed. 6.In the meanwhile, the wage structure of security personnel deployed by DGR sponsored agencies was being revised from time to time. However, the wages at the revised rates were not released to the security personnel deployed by the agencies which filed the writ petition. With materials WA2675/09 & con.cases -: 4 :- showing that repeated representations were made for release of such amounts and complaining that neither the revised wages nor arrears of wages have been paid, the agencies filed the writ petition. 7.The BSNL contested contending that beyond the initial agreed period, the security services were extended on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court and DGR had not sponsored them, though an agreement was executed. 8.The learned single Judge adverted to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the BSNL which specifically reflected the particular stand of BSNL that the agency continued to serve without re-sponsorship by the DGR and therefore, the prayer for revising the wages on the basis of the orders issued by the DGR cannot be accepted. The learned Judge overruled the objections of BSNL and held that the wages as per the revised wage structure notified from time to time by DGR WA2675/09 & con.cases -: 5 :- cannot be denied. It was held that on the basis of the initial sponsorship by the DGR, an agreement was executed and the need for extension of sponsorship and re-allotment was also upheld by this Court in WP(C).31070/2006 and connected case. The DGR had challenged the said judgment before the Division Bench unsuccessfully leading to Ext.P5(a) judgment. 9.We may also notice that the Division Bench had categorically held in Ext.P5(a) judgment that the security agency can be initially appointed by the DGR for a period of two years and that can be extended for a further period of two years, provided that it has not violated any of the guidelines issued by the Central Government in that regard. The Bench had categorically held that the DGR did not have a case that the security services of the writ petitioners, who were initially sponsored by DGR, had violated any of the guidelines of the Central Government. The Bench interpreted Clause 26 of the Guidelines and WA2675/09 & con.cases -: 6 :- held in Ext.P5(a) judgment that the petitioners were entitled to extension of their term for a further period of two years. With no doubt in that regard, we are clear in our mind that such extension should carry with it all entitlements which would have accrued on the basis of such continued service. Therefore, in our view, the learned single Judge acted rightly in granting reliefs to the extent benefit has been granted to the agencies and the personnel as per the impugned common judgment. We find no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in an intra court appeal. The writ appeals accordingly fail. In the result, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. P.R.Raman,Ag.Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,Judge. Sha/2302