The High Court · 2025

Petition I n,je,- slection 151 CPC praying that in thr: cir:um';tances stated ir support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to in the affidavit fil€,d SUSpendtheirrprlgledorderdated24.og.2o2lvideL.R.Nc.Dl)S,32(1y2019- Mlsc issued b) t.1e,1ih respondent by directing the respondents o continue the petitioners undlr uir:ct Payment System (DPS) pending d spo';al of the writ petition. Counsel for the F'etilioners: SRI KULDEEP JADHAV Counsel for the Fle:;pondents: SRI B.G.RAVINDER REDDY, SC F()R FCI The Gourt made f h() following: ORDER I ') HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT P TION No.225 o12022 ORDER: Heard Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and Sri B.G. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioners approached this Court seeking the prayer as under: "...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 24.09.2021 vide L.R.No.DPS.32(1)/2019-MISC on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrarlr, principles of natural justice and in violative of Articies of 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners under Direct Payment System (DPS) by restoring their seniority and extend all other consequential benefits and pass...".

3. The case of the petitioners/ in brief, is that the Food Corporation of India initially engaged the petitioners on contract basis for loading and unloading work through Societies from

1989. When the petitioners and other workers agitated for r'.i . . -.-..la!r.*- --r---*--**,-!.,*[email protected]::. 2 SN, J wP 225 2022 absorfrticr ()n a permanent basis, the Food rlor[)orar:ion of India introducec Direct Payment System through a Circuiar dated

05.11.1')97 issued by the Government of India. Th,,) petitioners have heln rr3gistered with employee's Piovidont l:unr Scheme by the F(ll arcl assigned with Account Numbers. The Regional Depot Ma'rir,ger has prepared a seniority list, wht:reirr the juniors who haci .jcined in the year 1998 to 2000 have been shown as senion; tr: the petitioners and placed abr>ve the petitioners illegally l he petitioners made reprr:ser tati tns dated

28.01.2017, 27.02.20t7 27.L1.20t7, 78.12.20.7 t5.04.2019,

71.02.2.02), and 4.07.2020 to the responderts ven.ilating their grie!'zrrce trut the same had no[ beerr c:nsi,lered. The petitiorEr':; on an earlier occasion filed W.P. t\lo. !;37 )f 2020 and this Co:r, passed orders dated 13.06.2021 di-ecting the respond(ir:r; to consider the representation dated )4.07.2020. Thereeft::r,:he respondents passed the impuglnec or(rer rejecting the relrie:;1 of the petitioner's to extend tl"e bene,'it of Direct Paymr:nt:;ystem. Aggrieved by the impugnr:cl rrrder Cated

24.09.2()2 L issued by the 4th respondent, the petit oner's filed the prcrs,ln I rvrit petition. ) J 4 PERUSED T E RECORD SNJ wP 225 2022 (A) The relevant oo ion of the order imouoned ated 2 2021 iss he dire of thi m lianc .06.2 in W.P. No. 537 of 2021 is extra cted hereun der "On verification of the seniority list, the petitioners who have filed the W.P. in the Honorouable High Court of Telangana, the names of the petitioners were reflected in the seniority list of the Handling Labour which is as under. sl. No 01 02 03 o4 05 06 o7 08 09 10 Name of the petitioner Name reflected at Sl.No. as per final seniority list prepared bY the FCI committee of officers o. Janaiah ohanavath Pakera Maloth Pandu q o. Sukkiah Dheravath Sankar, S/o. Balsingh Guouloth viiay S/o. Basha Danavath Moula Pandu MA D. Nehru s o. Anad T. Vasu, S/o. T. lanaki RanlUlu- o. D. Nandiah Danav th i Koncham Anja iah S/o. K. Gopaial o.D.B ha o. M. Lacha Not reflected Not reflected 3 3 322 Not 2t3 275 274 210 211 On observing the above table it is clear that the name of the petitioner viz., at 51.No.1,2 and 5 were not reflected in the seniority iist and the remaining petitioners were reflected beyond Sl'No'205 in the seniority list. As the induction was covered till the seniority number from Sl.No.o1 to 205 and the petitioners name did not reflect in the seniority list from Sl.No.01 to 205. They were not inducted as DPS Handling Labourers at that time by the committee officers and hence their claim is not tenable and the representation submitted by the petitioners is liable to be rejected. At this juncture, as the entire DPS induction process was completed during the year 2003 itself inducted 205 H/Ls as per the requirement anJ capacity of the godowns by following the then seniority list submitted the Labour Society and duly scrutinized by commidee of the officers, the induction process was completed without prejudice. As such, t.he representation of the petitioners. after elapsing of 17 years raising the dispute of seniority list could not be j j I i l l l : ' - d*r.{'lt[.a!ed'.r:-t&t:!qi=:- ' "-_'*-",r. - I t 4 SN, J wP 225 2022 consi(lere,l ry this office as the induction had bee, co npreted in the year 2C rl:: i':self as per the directions of FCi Headq(rart(,rs, New Delhi, and iuffi,tr( nt DpS labourers were inducted as per the standing instr J ct o.r; Ir ri:w of the above, the orders of Hon,blr High Court, Telangana dated 30.06.2021 passed in W.p, No. 537 o" 20i1 stating that tr€ necessary orders may be passed as pe- the lara complied anj the r()p -es;ontation dated 04.o7.2020 submitieri by the petiiioners is not t3n.rbl3 .:nd hence disposed off,,. (B) Counter affidavit has been filed on behatf of the resp_on d !!_nt. Th e releva nt portion of th e_-so_UntClaIf!-da_Vt t-S.€X_trjlc.L ed hereun der: "I: it; submitted that the FCI used to engag(: the private contritctlr:;, who used to engage their own latrourt:Ts, for doing the loadinrl a'rrl unroading work, from time to time,. Trereafter tfre labourr:r: 1c rmed a labour contract Society and usr:d t( take up the work o. lc rJing and unloading of food_grains, ,letting the said work done hy ir; nembers. Thereafter, the FCI had introduc,:d the Direct Paymr:nt System Scheme vide FCI Hqrs.Cir. No.IR ( )/3t(2l)/g7 , Dt.05,-1 l'))l for absorbing these labourers as Dp:; wcrkers, to the i-:d. Accordingly, the competent authoritv harl appointed a extenl- r€q. commi':t( e, fi>r prsparation of seniority list of trre contr.rct Iabcurers. The con'-ni:rr)e had, in terms of the circurar an(r in conr,urtation with the Sor: ety' ilrd based on the records available, prepared and inducted 205 latro rrr:":; as Handling Labour, out of 370 Fiamalr la 5ourers. The 205 tJar dr rrg Labourers were inductecl follo,rving th,_. guidelines mentioned ir the circular and as per the req Jirernent and it has become r f ni, L Ctn verification of the seniority list the nanles {)f th 3 petitioners found ir tre r;r:niority list, arc as under : _ ar) 5 SN, J wP 225 2022 Name oF the petitioner No. Nrme ieflected at Sl,No. as per final seniority list prepared bY the FCI committee of officers uloth Vi o. Balsin h S o. Basha Dhanavath Pakera, S/o. -lanaiah Maloth Pandu, S/o. sukkiah Dheravath Sankar G - Dan vath Moula S o. D. Basha 01 02 03 04 05 06 Maloth Pandu, S/o. 14. Lacha D. Nehru s o. Anad o7 T. Vasu 08 o. D. Nandiah Danavath D 09 I <orrcham anjaiah S/o. K. GoPaiah 10 o T. lanaki Ramulu Not Not 3 3 Not reflected 2 275 274 2to 27t It is therefore, clear that the names of the petitioners of Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 5 are not reflected in the seniority and as reoard to

30.10. oO3 submitted b the so ietv and dulv verified 97 o H mmendin o onlv 205 H/Ls e n mml ea 61 A/Ls for indu a o on into DPS s asD and I (c) The order of this Co rt date 13.O6. o21 Da sed in W.P. No. 537 of 021 is tracte hereun der: "It has been contended by the petitioners that they are working as Hamalies with the 4th respondent Depot and initially they were employed as Hamalies with the FCI Hamali Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited and thereafter the said Society employees were inducted under Direct Payment System vrde circular dated 05.11.1997. The petitioners submit that they are fully eligible and qualified to be brought under Direct Payment System in view of the said circular, but the respondents are not allowing them to come under DirectPaymentSystem.Inthosesetofcircumstances,thepetitioners t_ 6 SN, J wP 225 2022 subrr iti e( i detailed representation to the respondents )n 04.O7.ZOZO, but so far :he respondents have not passed any orders on the said repre s€ ntst on. 'I holefore, counsel for the petitioners ccntended that apprc,p'ia:il orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respcnrienl.:; to consider the representatio..t subrr itted by the petiti,;nr:r; n 04.O7.2020 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with la t r'. S'tancing Counsel appearing for the respondents rad contended that the Jretitioners are not entitled to be brotght under Direct Paymer t Siy5[grn, however, since the petitioners, ret resentation is pendi,]c 'uth lhe respondents, the respondents vroul< consider the same a'd pr;rss appropriate orders in accordance witlr lav . T'his Court/ having considereC the riv;rl sub'-n issions n:ade by learned counsel for respective parties, is cf the considered vierv t'hat this writ petition can be disposed of rlirecting the responderrts to consider the representation subnrrittecl by the petitione r:; on O4.O7.2O2O and pass approprial;e orders in accord;rnce with law, within s reasonalrle period of time, prefera,bly ,within eight v.reeks from the datt: of receript of a copy of th is D r I e,r". p:Is_c_!J_!i5;r_q N AN p coNcLUSTOH

5. it i:; the specific case of the petitione-s flrat )n an earlier occasrol tl-e oetitioner approached the Cour.. bi filing $/.p. No.537 c,'2020 and the writ petition was dist)oserl of yide its order dat{rl 30.06.202L directing the respordents ttrereunder to conside" t-te representaticil sub,mitted by the pe,titioners on .\l I i I : I I J ) 7 SN, J \Yt, 225 2022

04.07.2020 and pass appropi-iate orders in accordance to law rvithin a reasonable period, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and in compliance with the said directions of this Court dated 30.06.2O2I passed in W.P. No. 537 of 2021 the present impugned proceedings had been issued. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions: (i) In view of the clear admission in the counter affidavit at page No.2 that the names of petitioners at Serial Nos.1, 2 and 5 had not reflected in the seniority list but with regard to other petitioner's their names were in the seniority list but however, they were not inducted as DPS Handling Labourers since they had been declared as surplus and therefore, the admission of few others made subsequently in the year 2020 into Direct payment system ignoring the petitioner's cases is denying the petitioners' legitimate rights to the petitioners and therefore the petitioners are entitled for the relief, as prayed for in the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submits the representation of the petitioner dated

06.02.2020 to include the petitioners into direct payment system i*-+d..rei.--:!.!r.!!g:5r]:i:aq{rrqrri:,.a1n: .s- I i 8 SN, J wP 225 2022 and :c (:cntinue the petitioners under DpIi arro t) restore the petitioner''s seniority and further engage the se.vices of the petiticrrer':; without any break had been consirlered as per the dire<l:icn:r of this Court dated 30.06.2021 passed in W.p. No.537 of 2t)Zt;rrd in view of the fact that entire DpS sclreme process had reerr completed in the year 2003 it.self thrl peUtioner,s requesl n,)w at this length of time cannof be, corrsidered and thererore the relief as sought for by th,3 p3titi tners in the present u r i: petition is not permissible.

7. A L rrr-e perusal of the averments n,ade in the counter affidavil i'led on behalf of respondents clearly inlica::es at page 2 of the cor- n:er affidavit that the names of ther pe.:itio,rers at Serial Nos. L, l ilrd 5 did not reflect in the sen;ority, list anrl with regard to other pe,titioner's their names had reflected in the seniority list dated 30,10.2023 submitted by the Society ,:nd dul,, ver-ified (as per t 1€ t'o16g1s evolved/preScriberJ under thr: ci"cular dated

05.11.191, l'Circular of Head euarters by the Off,icer,j Committee at D.rl. :vel recommending only 205 H/t-s end 61 A/Ls for induction irto DpS and rest of the labourers !\/eTe declared as surplr:s arrri therefore they were not inducted as D ps Handring Labou -ers I i 9 SN, J \\a 225 2022

8. This Court opines that in view of the clear admission made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents (referred to and extracted above) that names of the petitioners except petitioner Nos.1,'2, and 5 were admittedly in the seniority list dated 30'10'2OO3 submitted by the society and duly verified by officers Committee as per Circular dated O5.11.!997t the request of the petationers for inclusion as DPS Handling Labourers needs to be re-considered by the respondents.

9. Taki no into onsider tion: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned Gounsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The order impugned dated 24.09'2O21 issued by the 4th respondent, (d) The averments made in the counter affidavit fited on behalf of the respondents at Page No'2 (referred to and extractei above), l0 SN, J wP 725 2022 ( el The clear admission in ther counl:ter affidavit filecl on behalf of the respondents that exceJrt petitioner Nos. I, 2 and 5 the names of other petitioners figured in the s,:niority list dated 30.1O.2023 suLrmitted by the Society ,tnd duly verified as per Circular dated 05.11.1997 by the officers committee at D.O. level, '[her writ petition is disposed ol, direc,t:ing the 4th respond,?nt to re-consider the rcquest of the petitioners for inr:lrrsion of the petitioners in the Direr:t payment System in accordance to law, cluly titking into consideration the clear admission made in i:he counter affidav'it at page No.2 that except petitioner N<r,s. 1, 2, and 5 the nantes of other petitioners reflected in the seniority list rCateJ 30.10.2OO3 submitted-by thcr Socie,t:y and duly verifierJ hy Officers Comrnittee at D.0. level and pass appropri,rte orders without reference to the !,npugned proceedirgs dated 24.O9.2O2L issued by' the 4th respondernt herein within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly commr,lnicate the decision tc' the petitioners. However, there r;hal! bc no order as 't,) costs. 11 SN, J \,vP 225 2022 Asa sequel, tite niscellar:e.-us petitions, if any pending, in the lvrit Petition shall also si:and closed. SD/- P. PONNA KRI HNA R ASSISTANT REGI //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To Barkhamba Lane, New Delhi' l.TheChairmanandManagingDirector,FoodCorporationoflndia'16-20' z. Th" ceneiairr,rrnug"i'(R"gion), Food corporation of lndia, HACA Bhavan, 3. i;;-d;b; hLgional Mrnager, Food Corporation of lndia' HACA Bhavan' Saifabad, HYderabad. Saifabad, HYderabad. Ramagiri, Nalgonda District - 508001 '

4.TheDivisionalManager'FoodCorporationoflndia,Districtoffice,V.T.Road' s. i[" oEpot rrlui."g"r,?ooJborooqtlgl-ofjndia' BSC' Sagar Road' " ftfi.vrfJ6rOr, Nrt6onO, District - 508207 Telangana State' 6. ir;6 CCi;SRl K"ULDEEP JADHAV, {Qrp9q!9.t-ofu-Ql i. 6;; cc i;SRi a.c.RAvtr{orn, sc FoR FCI [oPUC] 8. Two CD CoPies PSK./BSK j I I HIGH COUFiT DATED:251(t612025 ORDER WP.No.225 of '2022 CI3 TODAY J./.. /.)-_ ).i ili. .l i":ir^ 'li lffi ,, )' ii DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t ) ? D t-- h-. /