A.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As some of the issues raised in this petitions are interconnected inasmuch as it relate to duties and functions to be performed by personnel in the post of Mandal attached to the Direct Payment System (DPS) labour under the respondent Food Corporation India, etc., these matters are disposed of as per this common judgment. W.P.(C) No. 6081 of 2016 The prayers as amended in W.P.(C) No.6081 of 2016 are as follows :

(2.) Heard Sri.Mahesh V.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.R.Anison, learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India (FCI) appearing for Official respondents 1 to 4 and Sri.Santhosh.G.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for R5 Union.

(3.) The petitioners would contend that the recommendation of Saxena Committee report as per Exhibit-P18 has been implemented by the respondent FCI by the issuance of Exhibit-P17 and P2 proceedings. The petitioners would also contend that the duties and functions to be discharged by personnel in the post of Mandal of the DPS labour category are as regulated by Exhibits-P18, P17 and P2 and that the personnel in the post of Mandal cannot be compelled to do the work of handling labour. That the action of the respondents in insisting that personnel in the post of Mandal attached to the DPS Labour category should be regulated by the duties and functions as per Exhibit-R1(a) and Exhibit-P10 is clearly illegal and untenable inasmuch as those orders only relate to the Pre-Saxena Committee report scenario. It is the case of the petitioners that though they were already ready and willing to perform the duties and functions in the post of Mandal as envisaged in Exhibits-P18, P17 and P2, etc., the ground labour personnel were pressurising the respondent FCI officials that the work done by the handling labour should also be compelled to be done by the petitioners and this has resulted in the present disputes and issues. It is common ground that the petitioners have been suspended from service as per Exhibit-P21 and Exhibit-P22 and during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the first petitioner has superannuated from service on 30.11.2016. That the suspension order has so far been reviewed by the respondent FCI in spite of long lapse of time. It is also the contention of the petitioners that in all the depots of the FCI other than Nileswaram depot to which the petitioners belong, the respondent FCI officials are entrusting duties and functions to personnel in the post of Mandal only in terms of Exhibit-P18, Exhibit-P17 and Exhibit-P2 and on the basis of Exhibits-R1(a) and Exhibit-P10, etc. and that the stand of the respondent FCI to the contrary is only on the basis of their succumbing to the pressures and dictates of the handling labour, etc.