AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In all these petitions the consideration is to the similar effect and as such, they are taken up and disposed of through this common order.
For the purpose of narration of facts, the petitions in W.P.Nos.58780-82/2016 are noticed. The petitioners had enrolled students under National Skill Development Policy for the purpose of creating skilled workers. The petitioners are known as Vocational Training Providers who are to impart the training to the skilled workers towards which the payments are required to be made by the respondents. The consideration in this regard up to the stage of payment is regulated as per the Implementation Manual relating to the Skilled Development Initiative Scheme. The petitioners having imparted the training have submitted the bills to respondent No.2. Since the bills have not been processed and the amount has not been paid to the petitioners, they are before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to forthwith honour the bills submitted by the petitioner-Institution to the extent as has been indicated in each of these petitions, for having imparted the training to the candidates. The petitioners are also seeking payment of interest in this regard.
The respondents have filed their objection statement. Insofar as the institution of the petitioners having been entrusted with the training in Skilled Development Programs is not in dispute. However, what is contended therein is that the petitioners have not adhered to the requirement, but on the other hand there has been repetition of the names of the some candidates in the different institutions run by the petitioners and also there is repetition of the candidates in the same institution whereby there is duplication of the amount as claimed and therefore it is contended that the bills have not been paid. Further it is also indicated that if the petitioners had any grievance with regard to the nonpayment of the bills, the appropriate course was to approach the Regional Director of Apprentice Training. Further, it is indicated that a High Level Committee has been formed to examine the bills before the payment is made.
In the light of the contentions urged, a perusal of the petition papers in the background of the documents relied on, it is clear that this Court at this stage need not advert to each of the claims as made in the bill to decide the factual dispute relating to enrolment of candidates as it is impermissible in a writ proceedings. However, taking note of the contention that is urged in the objection statement, this Court at an earlier hearing date had directed the respondents to bring on record the list of names of the candidates which according to them is a repetition either in a different institution with a different number or in the same institution.
Though a list has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the correctness of the same need not be gone into herein inasmuch as the factual determination by way of reconciliation in that regard is required to be made at the end of the respondents. When such reconciliation is made and in the said process, if it is found that except for the payment to be withheld in respect of such of those candidates who have been enrolled in the different institution as a repetition, the payment to be made in respect of the candidates to whom the skilled development training has been imparted regarding whom there is no dispute, the amount as payable to the petitioners will have to be paid by the respondents.
Therefore, in that regard, all that is necessary to be taken note is that even in the Manual for implementation, a provision is made for such verification and to make the payment in that regard, but the entire payment cannot be withheld. Hence, at the outset, what is necessary to be ordered herein is that the bills as submitted by the petitioners is to be taken note by respondent No.2 and from the list as maintained by them, a verification is required to be made with regard to the candidates regarding whom it is alleged that there is a repetition. For the present, the consideration of the payment in respect of such candidates is to be deferred, but in respect of the other candidates regarding whom there is no dispute, the amount is required to be paid.
Insofar as the indication by respondent No.2 of such discrepancy, in the process of reconciliation if the payment is deferred with regard to the repetition or the disentitlement for any other reason, the reason therefor shall be assigned so that the petitioners if aggrieved in that regard may assail the same in accordance with law. Hence, the appropriate course is also to direct the respondents to conclude the process of reconciliation within a time frame and make the payment of the admitted amount within such time frame.
Therefore, a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to take note of the bills as submitted by the petitioners and reconcile the same with the list of candidates as submitted by the petitioners and the list available with the respondents if any and in respect of the candidates where there is no dispute, the amount shall be quantified and the same shall be paid to the petitioners. The process of reconciliation shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The payment due and payable shall be paid to the petitioners within a further period of three months from the said date.
Insofar as the payments to be disputed, immediately on reconciliation being completed, the reasons for rejection of the bills relating to the number of candidates shall be made known to the petitioners immediately thereafter. In terms of the above directions, all these petitions stand disposed of.