Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, former employees of Standard Alkali Limited (Respondent No.5), filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the State Government to decide their representation dated 23.12.2008. The representation sought additional compensation of Rs. 3.5 lacs, which had been distributed by the then Hon'ble Guardian Minister to 57 other workers of the same company on 22 June 2008, as reported in a newspaper article. The petitioners claimed they were similarly situated and entitled to the same benefit. They alleged that despite a meeting held on 11.02.2009, no action was taken on their representation. The court examined the averments and annexures, noting a letter from the Joint Secretary of Industries, Labour and Power Department dated 30 June 2009, which stated under the Right to Information Act that the amounts paid to the 57 workers were not distributed on behalf of the department and no information was available with them. Further, the petitioners themselves admitted in paragraph 21 of the petition that the amounts distributed by the Guardian Minister were supplied by Respondent No.5 company. The court held that the additional compensation was a discretionary ex-gratia payment made by the minister, not from government funds, and the petitioners had no legal right to claim parity. The court declined to issue any direction, including to consider the representation, as there was no public duty or statutory obligation. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Discretionary Ex-Gratia Payments - No Legal Right - Petitioners sought direction to decide representation for additional compensation distributed by Guardian Minister to other workers of a closed company - Court held that such payments were discretionary and not from government funds, hence no legal right or public duty exists to enforce parity - Petition dismissed as not maintainable (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners have a legal right to claim additional compensation distributed by the Guardian Minister to other workers, and whether the court can direct the government to decide their representation.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. No direction issued to consider the representation.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction not available for claims based on discretionary ex-gratia payments
- No legal right to equal treatment in ministerial largesse
- Representation cannot be directed when no statutory duty exists
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 150
WRIT PETITION NO. 6666 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.35018 OF 2013
ANOOP V. MOHTA, G. S. KULKARNI
Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amol P. Mhatre for the petitioners, Mr. Sandeep Babar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Prasad Dani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Patil i/by Mr.Ajay S. Patil for respondent No.4, Mr. Vijay P. Vaidya for respondent No.5
P. Shankaranarayan and ors.
The State of Maharashtra and ors
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking direction to decide representation for additional compensation
Remedy Sought
Direction to the State Government to decide the petitioners' representation dated 23.12.2008 for additional compensation of Rs. 3.5 lacs
Filing Reason
Petitioners were denied additional compensation distributed by the Guardian Minister to other workers of Respondent No.5
Issues
Whether the petitioners have a legal right to claim additional compensation distributed by the Guardian Minister to other workers?
Whether the court can direct the government to decide the petitioners' representation?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they are similarly situated to the 57 workers who received additional compensation from the Guardian Minister and that their representation should be decided.
Respondents contended that the amounts were not distributed by the government department and no information was available with them.
Ratio Decidendi
The additional compensation distributed by the Guardian Minister was a discretionary ex-gratia payment, not from government funds, and the petitioners have no legal right to claim parity. No public duty exists to decide the representation, hence writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.
Judgment Excerpts
Considering the facts of the case and the claim as made by the Petitioners, we are certain that we cannot grant any indulgence in such a writ petition even to issue a direction to the Government to consider the representation.
The rights of the workers, if any, to seek retrenchment compensation or any such compensation are required to be espoused before the appropriate forum.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 6666 of 2012 in the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to decide their representation dated 23.12.2008. The petition was heard along with Civil Application (ST) No.35018 of 2013. The court dismissed the petition on 30 August 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
