AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The Original Petition filed by the petitioners seek for a direction for continuation in the service of the 1st respondent by absorbing them under the 1st respondent and alternatively to grant terminal benefits in accordance with law. The 1st petitioner is no more and the legal heirs having not been impleaded, it is to be taken that the legal heirs are not interested in pursuing the matter. The issue now is pursued only by the petitioners 2 and 3. The petitioners were taken into the employment under the 1st respondent by Exhibits P3 and P4 and after service for a considerable period, it is alleged that they were sent out unceremoniously on the closure of the 1st respondent on account of the grant-in-aid being stopped in the year 1994.
The petitioners contend that the 1st respondent was constituted as per Exhibit P1 and that it was specifically specified in Exhibit P1 order that the staff in the 1st respondent would be governed by the rules and regulations applicable to the Government Engineering College. The Principal, Government Engineering College, Thiruvananthapuram was the Ex-officio Director of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was constituted under the 3rd respondent and it is contended that whatever benefits flowed from the regular service of employees in the Engineering College should necessarily be granted to the petitioners too. On the basis of the contention, it is also claimed that when their services were terminated in the year 1995, the petitioners ought to have been absorbed either under the Government of Kerala or in the Engineering College service and in any event, they ought to have been granted terminal benefits as is applicable to the regular staff of the Engineering College, Thiruvananthapuram.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per Exhibit P8, the Ministry of Urban Development under the 4th respondent had, in fact, sought the opinion of the Director of the 1st respondent regarding the terminal benefits payable to the employees under the 1st respondent. The Director also had recommended favourably the payment of terminal benefits as per Exhibit P9 and has also suggested a scheme, by which such employees who were terminated on the closure of the 1st respondent could be given a "golden hand-shake". It is also pointed out that on closure of similar centres in the other States, they were absorbed in the regular service of the Government.
Having given anxious consideration to the records in the above case, it is not discernible as to what was the exact constitution of the 1st respondent. Exhibit P1 merely states that the staff employed for the running of the 1st respondent would be governed by the rules and regulations applicable to the Government Engineering Colleges. This does not create any right on such employees to claim identity of employment with the employees of the Government Engineering Colleges or even parity of employment. From Exhibit P6 letter it is clear that the 1st respondent was set up as a grant-in-aid institution with recurring maintenance grants from the National Buildings Organisation, the 3rd respondent. It is also stated in Exhibit P6 that the staff so recruited by the Centre shall be governed by the service conditions of the mother institution, i.e., College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram. This again, as noticed above, cannot lead to a conclusion that the staff so recruited and employed in the 1st respondent would be the staff of the Engineering Colleges. Exhibit P6 also speaks of a proposal of the Government to convert the Centre as a registered society to function under the Ministry of Urban Development and HUDCO in association with the State Governments. Evidently, such a proposal did not fructify, as, on the suspension of the grant-in-aid, the 1st respondent unit itself was closed down. The petitioners who had been employed under the 1st respondent unit thus has been deprived of employment. It cannot be said that such deprivation was illegal in view of the fact that the 1st respondent unit, which was set up as a grant-in-aid institution, was closed down on such grant-in-aid being discontinued.
The 3rd respondent, though not represented by counsel at the time of hearing, has filed statements controverting the allegations in the Original Petition. As per the statement dated 20.09.2002, it is stated that on the grant in aid being withdrawn, the Regional Centres similar to the 1st respondent were given the option of (i) conversion into a building centre or (ii) merger of staff with the parent institution or (iii) closure of the Centre. In the instant case, neither the Centre was converted as a building centre, nor could any approval be obtained for merger of the staff with the Government Engineering Colleges; which are under the State of Kerala. The statement also refers to the recommendations of the study group of the Central Ministry, which had recommended the closure of the Regional Centres under the 3rd respondent, including the 1st respondent at Thiruvananthapuram with effect from 31.03.1994. However, with respect to the claim of the petitioners for terminal benefits, the 3rd respondent would state so in its statement:
In cases where the RHDCs could not be converted into building centre or the mother institution failed to absorb the regular employees of the closed RHDC, the retrenched staff would be paid terminal benefits by 3rd respondent as per the rules applicable to them. The entitlement of these benefits are to be worked out by the concerned Engineering College.
The 3rd respondent after closure of RHDC, Thiruvananthapuram perused the matter with the Ex-officio Chairman, the Principal, College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram. The 3rd respondent also demanded details of cash/bank balance available with the erstwhile RHDC as on the date of closure and also details of assets like Jeep and other equipments created out of grant-in-aid released by the 3rd respondent to erstwhile RHDC. But no report is also far furnished.
While the petitioners were pursuing their claims inter alia with the above writ petition, they were issued with a letter dated 31.12.2002, produced as Annexure R3(a) along with the additional statement of the 3rd respondent dated 20.08.2003. As per Annexure R3(a), the petitioners were granted leave encashment and gratuity alone for the period spent in employment up to 31.03.1994. The 3rd respondent also contended before this Court in the statement that even the amounts granted as per Annexure R3(a) were not received by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners would counter, with the submission that they had not received the amounts since they were pursuing the matter in the above Original Petition and did not want to take the risk of having accepted the same leading to a conclusion of satisfaction of their claims.
As noticed above, it is difficult to assume from the documents available on record that the Regional Housing Development Centre, the 1st respondent, was constituted as an organisation at par with the Engineering College or that the staff employed therein was intended to be treated as employees of the Engineering college. The claim for continuation of employment and regularisation necessarily cannot be allowed, since admittedly the 1st respondent is closed down. However, it cannot be disputed that when it existed as a grant-in-aid institution, the petitioners were all employed in the said institution and their services were terminated on discontinuation of such grant by the Central Government. The petitioners were also granted the pay scales similar to the staff in the Government Engineering College, Thiruvananthapuram and needless to say that the petitioners also would have been enrolled in the scheme of Contributory Provident Fund as applicable to the employees of the Engineering College. In fact, Exhibit P9 letter of the Director of Regional Housing Development Centre, who is the Principal of the Engineering College, also speaks of a Contributory Provident Fund and recommends the employer''s share of such Contributory Provident Fund also being paid to the employees on termination of their services. The 3rd respondent, National Buildings Organisation, has, by their specific statements filed in the above case as also Annexure R3(a) order, took upon themselves the liability to pay the terminal benefits to the employees similar to the petitioners. The only statement made with respect to the liability of the Engineering College, Thiruvananthapuram is as to proper reconciliation being not available with respect to the payments to employees and assets acquired by the 1st respondent while it was in existence. This is a matter between the 3rd respondent and the Engineering College, for which the petitioners cannot be victimized. I notice from Exhibit P9 that the Ex-officio Director of the 1st respondent had in fact recommended a ''golden hand-shake'', which proposal was not accepted by the appropriate Governments. The fact remains that the employees, on termination, ought to be paid the Provident Fund as also the gratuity for the services rendered by them. The 3rd respondent has granted the gratuity and leave encashment due to the petitioners by an order dated 31.12.2002. It is to be noticed that the termination of the petitioners were admittedly effected on 31.3.1994. In the circumstances, the petitioners are liable to be paid the interest for the amounts granted as per Annexure R3(a) at least till the date of the sanctioning order. Accordingly, it is declared that the 3rd respondent shall be liable to disburse the amounts granted in Annexure R3(a) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.3.1994 to 1.1.2003. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the amounts though disbursed to the Principal, Government Engineering College, Thiruvananthapuram, since the same was not accepted by the petitioners the same has been remitted to the treasury. If the amounts so transferred by the 3rd respondent has not been retransmitted to the 3rd respondent, it is for the 2nd respondent to take appropriate steps to disburse the said amounts to the petitioners expeditiously, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the event of the money having been retransmitted to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent shall take steps to disburse the same directly to the petitioners or through the 2nd respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In either of these events, the liability to pay interest is on the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent shall compute the same at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.3.1994 to 1.1.2003 and disburse the same to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. This Court restrains itself from granting future interest only on account of the amount having not been disbursed to the petitioners as it was not accepted by them. There shall also be a direction to the 3rd respondent, in consultation with the 2nd respondent, to verify as to whether the petitioners had been enrolled in any Contributory Provident Fund, in which event the amounts remitted by the employees and the employer as their respective contributions shall be refunded with interest as provided under the scheme from the date of termination of the petitioners till the date of realization and if no interest is provided, at the rate of 12% per annum. The petitioners, if so advised, shall produce evidence before the 3rd respondent as to contributions having been deducted from their salary as contributions towards any such scheme. If no Contributory Provident Fund scheme was in existence, then the 3rd respondent also shall pass an order with respect to the Contributory Provident Fund in the light of the observations made in this judgment, within a period of three months and communicate the same to the petitioners. The Original Petition is allowed, hence, with the following directions:
(i) The respondents 2 and 3 shall take immediate steps to release the amounts covered as per Annexure R3(a) to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.3.1994 to 1.1.2003 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, on default of which the petitioners shall be entitled to recover the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum starting from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment by the respondents.
(ii) The 3rd respondent, in consultation with the 2nd respondent, shall compute the amounts received as contributions from the employer and employee to any Contributory Provident Fund scheme and shall disburse the same with interest as provided in the Scheme or at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.03.1994 till realization.
(iii) There will be no order as to costs.