NMDC LTD. Vs. BANDI TIPPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals arise out of a common order as regards W.A. Nos. 608 and 625 of 2017 and similar order as regards W.A.No.1033 of 2017 passed in the interlocutory applications filed in separate but identical writ petitions. The issue raised in the said writ petitions is whether the writ petitioners, who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in W.A. Nos. 608 and 1033 of 2017 and respondent No.1 in W.A.No.625 of 2017, whose origin of appointment is traceable to Sponge Iron India Limited (SIIL), which has got merged with the National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) - the appellant, are entitled to fitment benefit of 30% instead of 18% given by the appellant. The writ petitioners sought for a mandamus declaring that they are entitled to be treated on par with the employees of the appellant after their merger and that fixation of fitment benefit at 18% instead of 30% is contrary to Sub-Clause (i) to Clause (2) of office memorandum, dated 26.11.2008, of the Union of India. The appellant filed counter-affidavit in W.P.No.37452 of 2015, whereby, in paragraph 2 thereof, it sought to justify giving fitment benefit of 18% to those who were originally SIIL employees, which reads as under:

(2.) The leaned Single Judge, by the orders under appeals, has disposed of the interlocutory applications by directing that the appellant shall extend 30% fitment benefit to the writ petitioners in view of office memorandum, dated 26.11.2008, of the Union of India.

(3.) Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned counsel representing Mr. K. Raghava Charyulu, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that as explained in the counter-affidavit of the appellant filed before the learned Single Judge, due to certain historical reasons such as extending the benefit of 18% fitment with effect from 2007 instead of from 2010 i.e., the effective date of merger and also taking into consideration the financial position of the appellant, a decision was taken for giving the fitment benefit of 18% to the employees who were originally appointed in SIIL. He has further submitted that all the employees have accepted the fitment as fixed under proceedings, dated 18.11.2013, and they have filed the writ petitions in the year 2017 after their retirement between 2013 and 2015, which itself is an afterthought and that therefore, the writ petitions suffer from laches.