Sri Ram Rai vs Sr. R.P. Gond and Others

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.—The petitioner, Sri Ram Rai, is an employee of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL). He is residing at the Posts & Telegraphs Colony, Kalibari Marg, New Delhi. As the name suggests, residential quarters in this colony were constructed for employees of the Posts & Telegraphs Department and they have been duly allotted to such employees from time to time. Admittedly, two new entities were carved out of the Posts & Telegraphs Department; they are Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) and the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL). In this way, after the creation of both BSNL and MTNL out of the original P&T Department, the remaining employees of that department constituted the Postal Wing thereof.

Originally, before the creation of the other entities as aforesaid, the Posts & Telegraphs Colony at Kalibari Marg, New Delhi, where the petitioner also happens to reside had a single welfare association, namely, the Posts & Telegraphs Residents Welfare Association. All residents of that colony were members of that Association. Later on, with the creation of new entities out of the existing Posts & Telegraphs Department, the employees of the erstwhile Posts & Telegraphs Department were taken into the new entities. They, however, continued to live in the same colony. The same Welfare Association also continued to exist in the colony and all the residents therein, regardless of whether they belong to the BSNL or to the MTNL or to the Postal Wing, continued to be members of the same society. The petitioner claims that he was also elected as a Secretary of the said Residents Welfare Association, at one point of time.

It appears that some time in the year, 2006, the BSNL has taken a decision to constitute another welfare association for the said colony comprising of BSNL employees only. Consequent upon this decision, the BSNL has issued a notification dated 8th April, 2008 for election of the Managing Committee of the said BSNL Employees Residents Welfare Association. By this notification, an election schedule has been published.

The petitioner is not an employee of BSNL. He is employed by MTNL. He has approached this Court in his individual capacity. He is aggrieved of the fact that although there are people in his colony who are working in MTNL, BSNL and the Postal Wing of the erstwhile Posts and Telegraphs Department of the Union of India, a Residents Welfare Association has been formed comprising only of employees of BSNL alone. According to the petitioner, the colony has about 600 allottees of the three organisations and since membership of BSNL Employees Residents Welfare Association is confined only to the employees of BSNL, therefore the interests of the remaining 400 odd residents of the colony would be ignored. His grievance is that originally, there was only one welfare association that was called, "the P&T Residents Welfare Association" and that organisation, in which all the residents have voting rights, should alone be allowed to exist or, as an alternative all the residents should be granted membership and voting rights of the newly formed BSNL Residents Welfare Association.

There is no gainsaying the fact that after the original welfare association came into being, the Department of Posts & Telegraphs has been fragmented and many employees of the original Posts & Telegraphs Department have now been absorbed in the MTNL as also the BSNL and today all three are separate entities.

Unfortunately, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any rule or law or precedent to show that residents of a particular area cannot form more than one association or that there cannot be more than one residents welfare association for a residential colony. I can understand if there was any law which prohibited more than one residents welfare association for a colony, however, this is not the case. Therefore, I do not see how the petitioner, who is not an employee of BSNL, can raise any challenge to a decision taken by the management of BSNL to permit its employees to form a residents welfare association, nor can I understand how the petitioner can demand a say in such an association or claim membership thereof. Counsel for the petitioner has attempted to urge that his client is also not being permitted to run any parallel welfare association for the same colony, but there does not appear to be any specific contention to that effect in the petition. No prohibition to this effect been demonstrated, either in fact or in law.

I might add that the petitioner admittedly does not represent any of the welfare associations operating from the said colony. It is not even a case of one welfare association agitating against the creation and functioning of any other welfare association in the same area.

Counsel for the petitioner further prays that the other residents of the colony, who are not employees of the BSNL, may be permitted to form their own residents welfare association; however, it has not been urged anywhere in the petition that there is any restraint on any person to form any association; nor has any such relief been claimed in the petition. I therefore do not express any opinion on this aspect.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed in limine.

CM No. 6396/2008

Since the writ petition is dismissed, this application does not survive and is also dismissed.