IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5572 of 1999 Between: Manappakam Swachannam Sreedharan, S/o. Late: M.S.Adhivarahan, Sudhanagar Unit, Parigi Post, Hindupur, Anantapur District, R/o. C/o. Mothukuri Chenchiratanam Complex, Darga Road, Naidupet, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, The Nizams Sugars Limited, Fateh Maidan Road, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 004. 2 The Chair-Person, M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Limited, Registered Office: B.C.105, Povlock Road, Off: Javelock Road, Camp- Belgaum, Karnataka. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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(s) essentially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 herein to allow the Petitioner herein to retire under Voluntary Retirement Scheme under the Respondent No.1 with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits including arrears of salaries and all amounts that will be payable to the petitioner under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme holding the action of the Respondents herein in not allowing the Petitioner herein to retire under Voluntary Retirement Scheme either by the Respondent No.1 or by the Respondent No.2 for no fault of the Petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, without jurisdiction, irrational, illogical, void-ab- initio and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other Order or Orders as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the Case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.THOOMSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.R.SRIDHARAN The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to retire under Voluntary Retirement Scheme with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was appointed as Grade III Clerk in respondent No.1. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Stores Supervisor. In order to pursue his higher studies, he got relieved on leave by continuing his lien in respondent No.1 organisation. Later, in pursuance of a memorandum of understanding, respondent No.1 agreed to sell the factory to respondent No.2 and pursuant thereto, a registered sale deed was executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 on 24-08-1998. On the eve of sale of the factory, respondent No.1 prepared a scheme for voluntary retirement of its employees and respondent No.2 implemented the same. There is a difference of opinion between respondents 1 and 2 as to whether the petitioner’s name figured in the list sent by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 for giving effect to the scheme of voluntary retirement. While respondent No.1 took the stand that the name of the petitioner did in fact figure in the list sent by it, respondent No.2 denied the said claim. Be that as it may, it has come out at the hearing that respondent No.2 also sold the factory to a third party. Respondent No.2 has taken the plea that as it has purchased the property from respondent No.1 under a private sale, no writ lies against it, even assuming that it has not followed the list forwarded by respondent No.1 in giving voluntary retirement to the erstwhile employees of respondent No.1. In my considered view, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds viz., that the factory is no longer in the hands of either respondent No.1 or respondent No.2. Secondly, as rightly pointed out by Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the sale was through a private negotiation and not traceable to any statutory enactment. Respondent No.2, admittedly, is a private party which does not answer the description of the state under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, even assuming that respondent No.2 has not complied with the requirement of the scheme framed by respondent No.1, the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of his purported right by invoking the public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving the petitioner free to avail any other remedy available to him in private law field to claim relief against respondent No.2. No costs. ----------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 29th December, 2008 SKM