Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30527
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
COL. AUGUSTINE MANGATTEPARAMBIL (RETD.) – Appellant
Versus
THE UNIT HEAD, M/S HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES (INDIA) LTD., – Respondent
WA/429/2021
R1 AND R2 BY SRI. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SC), R3-R5 BY SRI.M.N.MANMADAN (CGC), R3-R5 BY SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG
Strict adherence to empanelment criteria under DGR guidelines is essential; non-compliance results in disqualification from contract awards.
Headnote:
DGR - Security Services - Act Section List - This case involves the interpretation of the guidelines governing the empanelment of security agencies under the DGR scheme, emphasizing that eligibility requirements must be strictly adhered to, leading the court to conclude that the appellant was ineligible due to age restrictions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a retired Colonel, contested the dismissal of his writ petition after his DGR empanelment expired, claiming he was entitled to receive a work order based on being selected for a security contract by a public sector undertaking.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's eligibility under DGR guidelines had lapsed as he exceeded the age limit for empanelment, which justified the dismissal of his writ petition. The court upheld the learned Single Judge's conclusion that the age criteria must be strictly followed.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to be awarded a contract for security services despite his DGR empanelment having expired, and if the public sector undertaking acted contrary to applicable guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compliance with age restrictions and other eligibility criteria outlined in the DGR guidelines is mandatory, impacting the entitlement to receive work contracts.
Final Decision: The writ appeal is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2021 Shaji P. Chaly, J.
The appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 15575 of 2020 challenging the judgment dated 20.01.2021 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding as follows:-
“9. The fact that respondents 1 and 2 have selected the petitioner for award of work, is not disputed. The stand of respondents 1 and 2 is that in order to reduce their expenditure, they sought the possibility of getting security personnel through GeM. No work orders are issued to the empanelled agencies, awaiting clarifications from Government of India. From the pleadings available in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner is seeking relief on the basis of his empanelment by DGR. But, the period of empanelment is already over.
10. The petitioner himself has stated in paragraph 1 of the writ petition that the period of DGR empanelment is limited to 3 years or up to 60 years of age. Ext.P6 empanelment certificate produced by the petitioner would show that his period of empanelment ended on 24.05.2020. The writ petition itself is seen filed after the expiry of the period of empanelment. Therefore, a direction cannot be given to respondents 1 and 2 in this writ petition, to issue work orders to the petitioner.
11. The petitioner would contend that he was selected for award of works before the expiry of his DGR empanelment and respondents 1 and 2 could have given work orders to him earlier, failure of which has resulted in monetary loss to the petitioner. Assuming that the argument is tenable, the claim of the petitioner would be a monetary claim involving disputed questions of fact and this Court cannot adjudicate the same in writ proceedings.
In the circumstances, this Court finds that no relief can be given to the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. The petitioner will be at liberty to resort to any appropriate legal proceedings for any monetary claim against respondents 1 and 2, if he is so advised.”
2. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment, the appeal is preferred.
3. The basic facts required for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-
Appellant is a retired Colonel from the Indian Army and he has been operating a security agency by name M/s. Augustine Mangatteparambil Security Agency under the Director General of Resettlement (DGR) / MOD Scheme, intended to rehabilitate retired Military officers to provide security services. Providing security services to Central Public Sector Undertakings is one of such Schemes offered by the Central Government to rehabilitate retired Military, Navy and Air Force Personnel and as per the Scheme, retired commissioned officers are given self-employment opportunity by allotting a security agency in their name, to operate for a limited period of time. The period is limited to 3 years or 60 years of age, which is provided to give equal opportunity to other retiring officers. At the same time, the retired personnels below officers' rank are provided employment as security guard / supervisor, until they attain the age of 65 years.
The Director General of Resettlement functioning under the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi is the controlling and co-ordinating agency for the Scheme. In order to regulate the smooth implementation of the Scheme, the Government of India had issued Ext. P1 office memorandum dated 04.02.1994, which was being revised periodically, and finally it was revised as per Ext. P1 (a) dated
09.07.2012.
It is the specific case of the appellant that all the Public Sector Undertakings and Ministries are bound to follow the instructions as per Exts. P1 and P1 (a) scrupulously. According to the appellant, over a period of time, the Central Public Sector Undertakings have violated the above Government Orders and directions and started providing the security contract by open tenders to non DGR security agencies, avoiding the DGR circuit, absolutely
