LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-165

LT COL D GHOSH Vs. UOI

Decided On July 16, 2007
LT.COL. D. GHOSH (RETD.) Appellant
V/S
UOI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to clear the dues of the petitioner towards house rent allowance and telephone facility at his residence.

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from the Indian Army in the rank of Lt. Colonel and thereafter, registered himself with respondent no.1, the Directorate General Resettlement, for seeking re-employment. In the year 1999, respondent No.1 sponsored the name of the petitioner to respondent No.3, U.P. Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. It is the common case of the parties that respondent No.3 executed an Agreement with the petitioner on 9th July, 1999, valid for a period of one year, with effect from 1st June, 1999 to 31st May, 2000, whereunder the services of the petitioner were hired by respondent No.3 as a Chief Security Officer to be posted at the premises of Respondent No.2, Gas Authority of India Limited at Noida. In terms of the aforementioned Agreement, it was agreed between the parties that the petitioner shall be paid Rs.10,000/- per month as consolidated emoluments subject to full attendance and that respondent No.3 shall have no other liability of any nature whatsoever. It is also stipulated in the Agreement that the same shall be deemed to have been signed at Lucknow and the Labour/Civil Courts in Lucknow shall have jurisdiction in respect of any suit arising out of any dispute over and damage/compensation arising therefrom. Upon the expiry of the aforementioned Agreement, two more Agreements dated 7th June, 2000 and 22nd June, 2001 were executed between the petitioner and respondent No.3 on the same terms and conditions as contained in the first Agreement. The petitioner continued working with respondent No.3 from 1st June, 1999 till February, 2002 when he tendered his resignation on 5th February, 2002.

(3.) After passing of over two years, in May 2004, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition seeking payment of house rent allowance with a telephone facility by relying on clause 21 of the Work Order dated 1st June, 1998 issued by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3 regarding providing upkeep, maintenance and security cover to the installations of respondent No.3 in Noida region. The said clause is reproduced hereinbelow: