IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 14393 of 2004 Between: G. Jawahar Lal, S/o G. Gopalarao, R/o Flat No. Anusha Residency, Lakshminagar, Hyderabad-38 (Retd. Ex.Dy. Director (SG). ..... PETITIONER AND Chairman & Managing Director, Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd, Core-4, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -3. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the decision of the respondent- corporation to award the annual memento due for the year 2003 to only those employees who were on the roles of the corporation as on 1-10-2003 as arbitrary, illegal and violation of the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India and further direct the respondent- corporation to award annual memento due to the petitioner for the year 2003. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.VORUGANTI BHARATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 14393 of 2004 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The writ petition is ﬁled praying to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the decision of the respondent-corporation to award the annual memento due for the year 2003 to only those employees, who were on the roles of the Corporation as on 1-10-2003, as arbitrary, illegal and violation of the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India and further direct the respondent-Corporation to award annual memento due to the petitioner for the year 2002-2003. The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the services of the respondent-Corporation in the year 1978 and opted out of service on VRS in September 2003, after serving for nearly 25 years and three months. The respondent-Corporation has been issuing the annual gift for all the employees since its inception, thereby, the Corporation has declared the annual memento wroth Rs.17,000/- payable for the year 2002-2003 to all its employees. It is further submitted that he was associated with the Corporation in the capacity of Deputy Director until, he retired on VRS on 20th September 2003, but he was not given the annual memento. The annual memento given to the employees by the Corporation, is based on the ﬁnancial performance for the assessment year. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent-Corporation and also to the Hon’ble Minister of Power and also to the Secretary, Energy, MOP, GOI Vide letter dated 24.10.2003. In response to the same, the respondent-Corporation have informed by its letter dated 12.11.2003 signed by Dy.Chief (Personnel) that those employees, who were on the roles of the Corporation as on 1.10.2003 have only been given the annual memento for the year 2002-2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no reasons have been assigned as to what is the reliability of the cut of date mentioned in the letter dated 12.11.2003 that those employees who were on the roles of the Corporation as on 1.10.2003 as the petitioner retired from service on 30.9.2003 i.e one day before. Therefore, without giving any reasons, the said letter has been issued contemplating that the employees, who are on the roles of the Corporation as on 1.10.2003, are entitled to be given the annual memento for the year 2003. No counter has been filed. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the submissions made in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition, no doubt it is for the employer to take into consideration the cut of date. But no reasons have been assigned for taking into consideration, to determine the cut of date as on 1.10.2003. In spite of representations made by the petitioner, no orders have been passed. Therefore, I am of the view that to meet the ends of justice, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent- Corporation to consider the representation made by the petitioner, particularly seeking for annual memento for the year 2002-2003 as the petitioner retired on VRS on 30-09-2008 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date:12.06.2008 mrb