A. Rajanna v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation And 3 Others

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.17561, 17576, 17595, 17596, 17598, 17617, 17670, 17672, 17680, 17703 and 18096 of 2019 COMMON ORDER:

These writ petitions are filed challenging the action of respondents in issuing the Circular, dated 27.05.2019, for implementation of PMRPY (Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Protsahan Yojana) Scheme in Telangana State Road Transport Corporation. 2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri A.Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents straightaway issued circular, dated 27.05.2019, for recovering recovered the Employer's contribution through the petitioners, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. She further submits that even according to agreement, the Managing Director, has to decide the disputes, having issued the impugned circular, the petitioners cannot approach the Managing Director in respect of petitioners grievance. 4.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned circular is administrative in nature issued by the Managing Director to all its Unit Officers to ensure that E.P.F. amount is not claimed by the contractors twice and if any double benefit is claimed, the same will be verified and necessary action will be initiated after issuing appropriate notice to the contractors, as such, petitioners should not have grievance regarding

issuance of same. More so, it is internal communication and as of now rights of the petitioners are not affected.

5.

The only grievance of the petitioners is that respondents are straightaway recovering the amount under the impugned circular, which is only an apprehension, as the respondents have categorically undertaken that they will issue notice after verifying the accounts of the contractors and if they found that any double benefit is claimed, necessary action will be taken by issuing notice. The impugned circular is only internal communication providing for recovery of amounts towards double claim of E.P.F. amounts and as of now no rights of petitioners are affected and writ petitions are premature. In view of the same, this Court need not go into the other aspects and the writ petitions can be disposed of.

6.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent Corporation to verify the amounts claimed by the petitioners and if it is found that any double benefit is claimed by the petitioners, notices shall be issued before recovering the said amounts from the petitioners. It is also open for the respondent Corporation to take action in accordance with agreement entered into between the petitioners and respondent Corporation.

Miscellaneous petitions pending in all the writ petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

__________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 27th August 2019 mar