High Court · 2025

PetitlQn under Seotion 151 QBC pray!?S that iq lhe circrimstencq-s stpled ln the affidavit filed in sgppo( of thg petitipn, the High Court rray be pleased lo DIRECT the respondents- herein not to inygke/en- _cash the tlank cuaranleeq furnished by the petiti-oqgr for the works overgd Py Agregrnenj No_9.221E8: tv t2014 :1 5, 35tEE tV t2,Q14-1 Q, lglEE-tV t2 14-15, ?glEE-lVr:2Q'14-1s; a1lEE' j a- 1 I; lQiEE:l{r,z lvl 201 4-1 s; ? tEE-tv /2e1 4- t F: ?t.(FE-ryt?.g 33tEE. lv t2o1 4.1 5 ; _34tEE.tu t2o 1 4:1 5; 32tEEtv/?o1 s 1 5; 3Q/EE:tyl2o 31tEE- lV!2014:15,401EE-1Vt2014-15 anq 33/EE-!V/2Q14-'!i iii r;i by grd respondent on behglf of tfie 1gt respondent fqr thg woq[<g "Annual Watch & V_!q1d to TTD Kalyana Marrdappms" ?s ccmpleted hy 31-03-2915 pursuaDi to thp tettqrs dated 18-04-?015 qf the 3rd resi?qndenl, p.endins (lpposal c,f the main Wril Petitioq ' 11, q14 -15 15; Counsel for t[e Petitioner: Sfll P.CHNNDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI B.RAJESHWAR REDDY, SC FOR TTD The Court made the following: ORPER HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITON No.13279 OF 201s ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondents No. to 3 in not releasing the contracted value of I works, retention of Eamest Money Deposits to a tune of Rs.1,15,13,486/-(Rupees one crore fifteen lakhs thirteen thousand four hundred and eighty six only) in his favour, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. As seen from the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.l (TTD), it is contended that the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract. It was specifically agreed under the contract that the wage payment to the contract workmen shall be made only through bank account on the first day of every month to ensure strict adherence of statutory provisions. The contractor has to submit monthly comprehensive certificate llom a chartered accountant to the effect that minimum wages, Employee Provident Fund (EPF), Employees'State Insurance (ESI) and Service tax if applicable is paid to respective department and certificate is to be attached along with bill of subsequent month. The wage payment ofcontractors shatl be raised only 2 after submitting thc ESI and EPF payment challans/retums 1'or previous month and the same has to be produced to respondent Nc.t by all the contractors for their engagement of contract workmen to claim the subsequent month rvage bill. It is submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any proof of payment of wages to the vrorknren through account nor the payrnent made towards EPF, ESI, etc., till date and he is not entitled for the payment from the respondents. Despite st:veral letters and reminders lionr respondent No. 1, the petitioner has not firmished bank pay slips towards payment of salaries and challans for praymsnl .f' EPF and ES I along with the comprehensive certificate from the Chartered Accountant and also not submitted service tax challans

3. It may be noted that in paragraph No.13 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that thc petitioner has successfully completed tht: works for 2013-14, but failed to submit the required documents. Sc, far as the contract for the 1'ear 2014-15 is concemed, the bid of tlte petitioner was accepted and tht: agreement was concluded, before complt:tion of the work for the earlier year. The agreement period for works lor the year 2014-15 was extended up to 31-05-2015, but the contractor has not submitted bank receipts/challans etc., till date. Hence, payrnents were not released. So lar as the EMD amount is concemed, as per clause J

43.2.1 of the conditions of the contract, the EMD has to be released after twelve (12) months from the date of completion. The petitioner has violated the terms of the contract and consequently the bank guarantee for the year 2013-14 was invoked, the amount was credited into account of respondent No.l. In paragraph No.25 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that there are complaints of non-payment of salaries to watch and ward staff and in view of the same, the bank guarantee was proposed to be invoked. The amount thereof is credited into the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams account (non-refundable deposit aciount). On submission of proof of payment of salaries in a proper manner by the petitioner, the said amount would be released

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the documents in proof of payment of salaries including EPF and ESI to his employees have been fumished to respondent No.l which is evident from the letter dated 10.09.2014 (Ex.P-10) whereby respondent No-l was requested to arrange payment for watch and ward men for the year 20t3-t4.

5. The only grievance expressed by Mr. Raj eshwar Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), appearing for respondents No.l to 3, is that the employees of the 1 petitioner were not paid salaries and deductions towards IISI, and they rnay, at any point of time, raise claims before the competent authority and respondent No.1 (ITD), as the principal employer wilt be liable to pay the arrears of salaries and ESI.

6. I.earned counsel for the petitioner, rebutting the conlcntions of the leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.l, submined that excepting vague assertions, no details of non-payment of arrears of salaries to the employees olthe petitioner have been furnished in ther courrter a.ffidavit filed by respondent No.l. The dues payable to the petition,:r have been withheld for ex,.raneous consideration and the petitioner hr,s cleared all the dues payable to his employees.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this writ petition was filed in 20t5 and after a lapse of ten {10) years, the question of workmen/employees of the petitioner still having claims in respect of the due payable to them is highly improbable. Assuming that the workmen have grievance with regard to non-payment of arrears of salaries/wages, the petitioner would take the responsibility and would not take a plea before any forum that the persons employed by him are thr: employees of respondent No. I . - 5

8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, as no denial is being made by the respondents with regard to successful completion of work by the petitioner for the year 2013-14 md 2014-15, and taking into consideration the submissions of the leamed counsel lor the petitioner that the petitioner would undertake the liability, in case, his employee!/ workmen raise any claim of non-payment of arrears of wages towards EPF and ESI, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. I shatl pay the amount of Rs.1,15,13,486/- to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this application stand closed. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI SUJOY PAUL, The Acting Chief Justice on this Thu Twentieth Day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty Five' e SD/-T. TIRUMA DEPUTY DEVI STRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER aTi or Dis rupath trict. Road Trustees of , Tiryp etl't Ro'ad n t ve. Acimi firumala Tigpalhi Qqyasthqnams, Tim Nilyqry, Hyderabad 'i. 1 ? a 4 5 6 7 BSR BS HIGH COUR'T DATED:20103t2025 ORDER ll\IP.No.13279 ot 2015 't t\E SIa, tJ I 11 APB 2U5 t z o .4. t SpATCH eO ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 3