IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.10615 of 1999 Between: R. Seshagiri Rao S/o. R. Raghavendra Rao R/o: 2-241, Teacher Colony, Prathap Nagar, Kakinada, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Vice Chairman & Managing Director A.P. Fisheries Corporation Ltd,. 11th Floor, Gagan Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Director of Fisheries, 11th Floor, Gagan Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Govt. A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary Animal Husbandry & Fisheries (Fish-I) Dept. Secretariat, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, of Mandamus order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in seeking to terminate the services of the petitioner and forcing him to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discriminatory, besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and also violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to him under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue the consequential direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in the services of the Respondent Corporation and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.L.RAVICHANDER Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following : W.P.No.10615 of 1999 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to terminate the services of the petitioner and forcing him to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and discriminatory, besides being violative of principles of natural justice and also Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; consequently, to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the service of the respondent-Corporation. It appears, petitioner joined the service of the respondent-A.P. Fisheries Corporation Limited as a daily wage employee. Thereafter, his services were regularized as a Processing Boy with effect from 26- 3-1983 and was put on regular time scale. He was also granted annual grade increments periodically. Subsequently, he was also promoted as Bill Clerk with effect from 1-1-1995. According to the petitioner, since his appointment, he has been serving the Corporation with all sincerity and devotion. While that being so, by Circular dated 21-2-1995 of the 1st respondent, he was called upon to submit willingness for absorption into the service of State Government. Thereafter, he submitted his willingness for absorption into the Animal Husbandry Department. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.193, General Administration (Pol.C) Department, dated 12-5-1995 decided to wind up the respondent-Corporation. Challenging the said G.O., a Writ Petition in W.P.No.12694 of 1995 was filed before this Court and the same was disposed of in favour of those who had opted for VRS. Further, Government had constituted a Cabinet Sub-Committee to oversee the VRS and in the case of employees, who are not willing to be a part of VRS, to have their services terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.48, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Fish.I) Department, dated 23-5-1997 in this regard. In pursuance of the said G.O., employees, who opted for VRS were relieved in the month of June,1997. In respect of employees, who had not opted for VRS, the Board of the Corporation resolved on 29-12-1998 to request the Vice Chairman and Managing Director to take action under the I.D. Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government has not absorbed him into its service, though he gave an option for such absorption. Once he is not willing to opt for VRS, the very action of the respondents in seeking to terminate his services for not opting VRS is arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, when the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.193, dated 12-5-1995 deciding to wind up the Corporation, as noticed above, the employees challenged the same by way of filing a Writ Petition being W.P.No.12694 of 1995 and by an interim order this Court stayed all further proceedings in pursuance of the said G.O. including removal or retrenchment. Thereafter, on 28-6- 1995, the said interim order was modified as under: “The learned Government Pleader for G.A.D. Sri Rajanna states on instructions that no final decision is taken with regard to removal of the petitioners from service. It is also stated by Sri Rajanna that if any final decision is taken by the respondents, it would be brought to the notice of this Court before its implementation.” Subsequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of in view of the introduction of VRS. Though the said Writ Petition was disposed of, the petitioner was being continued in service till 30-4-1999. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is inter alia stated that the Corporation had proposed to send some employees, who are meeting qualifications for the post of Veterinary Assistant in the Animal Husbandry Department so as to reduce the excess staff. Hence, the Fisheries Corporation had called for willingness from the petitioner along with others vide Circular dated 21- 2-1995 asking his consent whether he is willingness to get absorbed in the Animal Husbandry Department as Veterinary Assistant. But, the proposal of the Corporation could not be accepted by the Animal Husbandry Department due to administrative reasons. Further, vide G.O.Ms.No.193, dated 12-5-1995, Government has decided to wind up the Corporation and to dispose of its assets declaring lay-off and retrenchment of the employees within one month under the I.D.Act as per the recommendations of the working group constituted to study the working of 18 State Level Public Enterprizes. 190 employees of A.P. Fisheries Corporation had filed Writ Petition No.12694 of 1995 against the winding up of the Corporation. This Court by an interim order directed that if any final decision is taken by the respondents, it should be brought to the notice of the Court before its implementation. Subsequently, Government had constituted a cabinet sub-committee to examine the recommendations of the working group on restructuring of SLEPs. The cabinet sub-committee has recommended that there is no alternative except to wind up the Corporation and close down operations by offering VRS to all the employees of the Corporation. The Committee also recommended that in case of the employees, who did not opt for voluntary retirement, will have to be covered under the provisions of I.D.Act and other relevant enactments. The proposal submitted by the Fisheries Corporation on implementation of VRS was accepted by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 23-5-1997. All the employees opted for VRS were relieved during the month of June,1997. The activities of the Corporation were closed during the very same month. Government had approved the recommendations of the cabinet sub-committee for voluntarily winding up of the Corporation. In respect of employees, who had not opted for VRS, the Board in their 102nd meeting held on 29-12-1998 had resolved to request the Vice Chairman and Managing Director to take action under the I.D.Act. Government vide their letter No.6093/Fish.I(i)/97-4, dated 8-1-1999 communicated the decision of implementation of I.D.Act in respect of employees, who had not opted for VRS and requested to take immediate action on the request of the Fisheries Corporation. Petitioner joined the Corporation on 5-4-1977 on daily wage basis and later his services were regularized as Processing Boy with effect from 1- 4-1983. Further, he was also promoted as Bill Clerk with effect from 1- 1-1995. A.P. Fisheries Corporation had proposed to send some employees, who are having qualifications for the post of Veterinary Assistant, to the Animal Husbandry Department so as to reduce the excess staff. The academic qualification prescribed for the post of Veterinary Assistant is 10th Class pass. Petitioner is a Graduate at that time. In this process, the willingness of the petitioner was called for vide Circular dated 21-2-1995, but the proposal could not be materialized due to some administrative reasons. This was only an attempt made by the Corporation to reduce the surplus staff. Since the petitioner has not opted for VRS, there was no other go for the respondents except to invoke the provisions of I.D. Act and pass the impugned Order dated 19-4-1999. Petitioner was paid all the compensation etc., as required under the I.D.Act and he was in fact, relieved on 30-4-1999. Sri L. Ravichander, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that firstly, respondent-Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it is supposed to follow in letter and spirit the provisions of the I.D.Act before the closure was declared by the Government. In this case, the procedure as required under Section 25 of the Act was not followed and it is the Government, which recommended closure and the 1st respondent has closed the Corporation. Secondly, the petitioner was not absorbed, though he expressed his willingness to join the Animal Husbandry Department as a Veterinary Assistant. Respondents 1 and 2 without pursuing further have simply denied absorption of the petitioner into Government Department on the ground that due to administrative reasons, the same could not be fructified. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Fisheries Corporation was itself found to be unviable and under those circumstances, the cabinet sub-committee recommended for closing down of the Corporation by offering VRS to all its employees. The committee also recommended that those who do not opt for VRS will have to be covered under the provisions of the I.D.Act and, therefore, the impugned Order was passed. The same is in tune with law. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in passing the impugned Order. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned Order and other material made available on record. It appears, to bring down the excess staff before closing down the A.P. Fisheries Corporation, some employees were identified with certain qualifications, who can be absorbed into the regular Government Department, viz., Animal Husbandry Department. But that was not fructified due to some administrative reasons. No Court can direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner into Government Department without there being any concrete basis, which had conferred at least some right on the petitioner. Insofar as the VRS was concerned, petitioner did not opt for the same. Therefore, as per the recommendations of the cabinet sub-committee, the petitioner was issued with impugned Proceedings dated 19-4-1999 and all the compensation as required under the I.D. Act was paid. He was relieved off from duty with effect from 30-4-1999. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-Corporation has not followed the provisions of I.D.Act before closing down the organization and no notice of any kind was issued to its employees before taking such a decision by the sub-committee and before it could be implemented, may not be available at this length of time, particularly when substantial number of employees had opted for VRS and have left the organization as per the recommendations made by the sub- committee. In fact, petitioner was aware of the recommendations made by the sub-committee for closing down the organization. That was a subject matter of an earlier Writ Petition, which was disposed of in view of introduction of VRS immediately thereafter. In view of this also, the above ground is not available to the petitioner and making any effort by the Court to go into such merits amounts to making a futile attempt. Petitioner was already issued a cheque as per the impugned Order and also he was relieved from service on 30-4-1999. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is any violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act in terminating his services. The bone of contention of the petitioner was only that before taking the decision to close down the Corporation by the cabinet sub-committee, the employees were not given notice. This ground is not available at this length of time, particularly in view of the fact that majority of the employees had also accepted VRS and left the organization and the organization was closed. Looking from any angle, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to opt for voluntary retirement instead of termination as per the impugned Order, if the VRS is more beneficial to him. On such representation being filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and disposed of accepting voluntary retirement of the petitioner and paying all the benefits as per his eligibility under the VRS, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. 11-4-2008 prk