THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27027 of 2014 Dated : 19.09.2014 Between:
M/s.R.Adinarayana Contractor, Rep., by its Proprietor, R. Adinarayana, S/o. Anantharamaiah, Aged 63 9yrs, R/o.22-180/4, Jayanagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad .. Petitioner And The Government of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Finance (HRM-I), Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27027 of 2014 ORDER :
The petitioner was granted contract vide proceedings dated 17.10.2013 to supply man power of 100 members of staff nurses and 100 members of Class IV employees. The said contract came into force from 21.10.2013 and was valid till 31.03.2014. This was renewed on 01.04.2014 till June, 2014. Thereafter no formal renewal was granted to the petitioner and was allowed to provide the services as originally envisaged in the order dated 17.10.2013. On 27.08.2014 a notice was issued to the petitioner informing the petitioner that he is not short listed by the selection committee for the purpose of providing services and it was also alleged that the petitioner has not paid the salaries to the employees and the hospital has received complaints from the employees and hence notice was issued to the petitioner to respond immediately.
2. On 30.08.2014 the order of termination with effect from 31.08.2014 is passed. This order alleges that the petitioner has not paid the salaries to the employees and complaints were made by the Employees Union. The petitioner was directed to clear all the pending dues of Employee State Insurance Act (for short the ‘ESI Act’) and Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act (for short the ‘EPF Act’) of contract employees and service tax, if not paid and on production of the due receipts, the arrears payable to the petitioner can be claimed. These orders are challenged in this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for Medical and Health, Telangana State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the notice dated 27.08.2014 and the order dated 30.08.2014 was served on the petitioner only on 09.09.2014, by which date the termination has already come into effect. The order of termination could not have been made without affording opportunity of hearing. The allegations made in the notice dated 27.08.2014 and in the order dated 30.08.2014 regarding non-payment of salaries and not making contributions is contrary to record. The petitioner was not afforded opportunity and if the petitioner was afforded the opportunity, he would have satisfied the competent authority on these issues and therefore, the termination is illegal and the petitioner is entitled to continue to provide the services as originally envisaged in the contract dated 17.10.2013.
5. It is further contended that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 01.07.2014. These orders envisage that the contract employee services should not be dispensed with. This order of the Government cannot be given effect, unless the petitioner services are continued and therefore, necessarily his services have to be continued.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader for Medical and Health, relies on the orders of the competent authority dated 16.08.2014, placed before this Court. As submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader, and a reading of the said order would disclose that tenders were called for selection of outsourcing agency and after following due process 17 agencies were short listed and they were empanelled. The petitioner is not one of the persons who were short listed. As per the empanelment, M/s.GJR Services is identified as the new contractor to supply requisite man power for Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. On instructions, he submitted that the new contractor has commenced his contract and is undertaking the supply of man power services.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that from the date of service of notice, the petitioner is not providing the services.
8. As things appear from the submissions made by the learned counsels, the petitioner is no more providing services and as the new contractor is not a party to this writ petition, no relief can be granted which would directly affect the interest of the new contractor.
9. As seen from the orders dated 17.10.2013 the petitioner was granted assignment to provide man power services initially for a period of six months. This was renewed for further period of three months from 01.04.2014 till 30.06.2014. Thereafter, no further orders were communicated to the petitioner, but the petitioner was allowed to provide services till new contractor took over. Thus, after the finalization of a new contractors list, the orders were passed dispensing with the services of the petitioner. As per the terms of contract originally entered into and renewed, the relationship between the petitioner and respondents have come to an end by 30.06.2014 and by way of temporary arrangement his services were continued till the assumption of responsibilities by the new contractor. As contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner has not participated in the tender process and the petitioner was not enlisted for the provision of contractual services for the present financial year. This fact is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. G.O.No.13, dated 01.07.2014, cannot come to the rescue of petitioner. It is intended for the benefit of contract employees. Petitioner is a contractor who has undertaken to provide manpower services. His contract is governed by terms of contract entered with respondents and was operative for a fixed period. G.O.13 does not seek to extend such contract for indefinite period. Moreover, fresh list of contractors are already finalized. Therefore, no relief as sought by the petitioner can be granted.
10. However, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the notice dated 27.08.2014 and in the proceedings dated 30.08.2014, certain allegations are made against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has not paid the salaries to the employees engaged by it. He further submits that this allegation is not true. If an opportunity is afforded to the petitioner, he would have satisfied on the said allegations.
11. The factum of whether the petitioner has paid the salaries and allowances of the employees engaged by him has no bearing to continue with services of the petitioner as a contractor, since the term of contract granted to the petitioner initially on 17.10.2013 and extended on 01.04.2014, has expired on 30.06.2014. However, since the allegations do castigate the petitioner and may have adverse consequence on future relationship of the petitioner with respondents and to participate in similar tender process by any other organization, it is but necessary for the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On this aspect, learned Special Government Pleader, fairly submits that appropriate opportunity would be provided to the petitioner, if the petitioner submits relevant material in support of its claim that the salaries and allowances were properly paid and all the contributions are made as required under ESI Act and EPF Act, etc.
12. Having regard to the same, the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation giving particulars of the salaries paid to the contract employees engaged by the petitioner in pursuant to the contract given to him on 17.10.2013 and shall also file the proof of contributions made under the Employee State Insurance Act and Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, etc. On receipt of such representation, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed by the competent authority. If necessary, the petitioner would be provided personal hearing by the competent authority before passing appropriate orders. The petitioner shall submit the representation along with documentary proof within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After the receipt of such representation, the competent authority shall afford due opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders within a further period of two weeks. Until such orders are passed the aspersions leveled against petitioner in the order dated 30.08.2014 shall be treated as provisional.
13. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J 19th September, 2014 Rds