LT COL MJ REDDY Vs. DEPUTY HIGH COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the 5th respondent -Union of India to give suitable directions to respondents 1 to 4 to strictly implement the proceedings dated 25.04.2006 so as to settle the dues to the extent of Rs.2,99,454/- together with difference in the overtime payable to the petitioner.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was a Army Officer retired from Indian Army. He had secured appointment as a Security Manager with the first respondent British Deputy High Commission, Chennai. It is unnecessary to traverse the other averments except to state that the petitioner's contract with the High Commission came to an end on 31.12.2008. It is the claim of the petitioner that as per the terms of the contract and also the circular of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, he is entitled to get certain amounts. The petitioner had sent a representation to the British High Commission.

(3.) The Deputy Head of Mission informed the petitioner that the British High Commission has a fair and well-established framework of conditions and policies of service for locally engaged staff and the model contract given by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India is only recommendatory and not binding on any Diplomatic Mission bound by the Vienna Convention. The petitioner through his counsel had issued a notice to the High Commission and thereafter came forward to file the present writ petition.