IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 17196 of 2009(T) PETITIONER(S): M/S K.N. SECURITY & ALLIED SERVICES PVT. LTD., BUILDING NO. VII/43 B, CIVIL STATION, KUNNUMPURAM ROAD, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DIS T. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, COL(RETD) SHRI K.C.K. NAIR, RESIDING AT NARAYANEEYAM, 40/06 WARD NO. XII, KAMALA VILLA, CHINMAYA MISSION LANE, BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. TELECOMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RE-SETTLEMENT, MINISTRY DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, WEST BLOCK -4, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI. 3. THE BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAND & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, 301, STATEMENT HOUSE, BHRATHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-1. 4. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM KERALA CIRCLE BRARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -33 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BHRATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., MALAPPURAM (SSA) 6. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN FOR R3 TO 6 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1-2 SRI. MATHEWS K. PHILIP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 17196/2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DT. 29-11-2006. EXT.P2 ORDERS DT. 18-10-2007 AND 28-10-2008. EXT.P3 COMMUNICATION DT. 14-7-2008. EXT P4 REPRESENTATION DT. 22-7-2008. EXT.P5 PROCEEDINGS OF R4. EXT.P6 PROCEEDINGS OF R4. EXT.P7 REPRESENTATION TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 27-11-2006. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 17196 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a security agency engaged by the 3rd respondent for security services, as per an agreement executed for that purpose. The Director General of Re-settlement revised the minimum charges and other allowances payable to security guards. According to the petitioner, consequently, the 3rd respondent is liable to revise the amount payable to the petitioner under the agreement, corresponding to the minimum wages and allowances so fixed. The same is not being paid by respondents 3 to 6, is the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 5 & 6 to pay the revised wages and other allowances at the rates mentioned in Ext. P2 and as prayed for in Ext. P7 within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court with interest at the rates of 18% for the delayed payment; (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to pass orders on Ext. P7 in the light of Exts.P3, P5 & P6 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The contention of the standing counsel for the BSNL is that amounts are being paid to the petitioner on the basis of an agreement already executed by the petitioner. Respondents 3 to 6 are bound to pay only amounts as per that agreement and even if any revision of wages is effected during the pendency of the agreement, respondents 3 to 6 are not liable to pay any additional amount to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the very same issue was considered by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No. 18367/2009, wherein in identical circumstances, this Court has held that the respondents are liable to pay the additional W.P.C. No. 17196/2009 -: 2 :- amounts payable proportionate to the increase in wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also made available to me a copy of that judgment. Although the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent is proposing to challenge that judgment in appeal, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition following that judgment. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: The 3rd respondent shall take appropriate steps to revise the amount payable to the petitioner as per Ext. P1 agreement based on the increase in wages and allowances sanctioned by the Director General of Re-settlement by Ext. P2 and take a decision as to the additional amounts payable to the petitioner consequent thereto. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Additional amounts due to the petitioner shall be paid accordingly without any delay. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/