C. NAGARAJ S/O CHIKKA VEERAPPA Vs. HMT WATCH FACTORY I AND II, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HMT LTD., HEAD OFFICE, HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE AND THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE), HMT WATCHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition to quash a letter dated 27.3.2008 issued by the Asst. General Manager (Finance) R -3 herein as per Annexure -F as arbitrary, irrational, unsustainable and unconstitutional and to issue a writ of mandamus or any other direction to calculate and pay the amount to the petitioner towards recovery of excess rent and also retirement benefits along with interest at 12% p.a. as per the directions issued by this court in RP Nos. 459 -461/2000 dated 8.1.2001 and also in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 31.10.2007. Facts of this case are as hereunder: Petitioner was an employee of the respondent HMT Watch Factory. He retired from service w.e.f 30.4.1997 after attaining the age of superannuation. During his employment, he was allotted quarters. Even after retirement he did not vacate the quarters and rents were not paid. He had also availed House -Building Advocate and House Building Advance was also not paid. An order was passed by the Respondents to call upon the petitioner to pay penal rent for not vacating the premises which had resulted in filing of a Writ Petition and thereafter a Review Petition was filed in RP Nos. 459 -61/2000 which petition came to be allowed on 8.1.2001 holding that Respondents are not entitled to levy penal rent and Respondents were directed to refund the amount with interest.

(2.) AS per Annexure -F to the Writ Petition, on 27.3.2008 Respondents addressed a letter producing calculation sheet of the company and also demanding the amount payable by the petitioner under the bead of the Account HBA Loan'. This notice is called in question in this petition and also seeking a direction.

(3.) WHAT is sought to be quashed is a letter of demand dated 27.3.2008 issued by the respondents. If an employer has demanded the petitioner to pay the amount payable to the company, if really petitioner is not liable to pay such sum, it is for the petitioner to send a detailed reply and to convince the authorities how he is not liable to pay and similarly if any amount is not paid to the petitioner in terms of the order passed in the Review Petitions, if is open for him to file a contempt petition As a matter of fact, petitioner had already filed a contempt petition before this court which has been disposed of In spite of all these things, petitioner is sought to challenge a letter addressed by the Respondents on 27.3.2008. No court can quash a letter of demand made by the Respondents. If the petitioner is of the opinion that there is a mathematical error or is not liable to pay, it is for him to send a reply. Instead of doing so, he has resorted to file a Writ Petition. According to me, this Writ Petition is unritious or and filed only to dodge the proceedings. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, as such Writ Petition is not maintainable. Hence this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/ - which shall be paid to the Respondents by the petitioner failing which it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.