High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-01-18Writ petitions dismissed for maintainability (l...

All India BSNL-DOT Pensioners Association v Union of India and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 5131/2021 & 22849/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2022-01-18
Court Decision / Holding: In view of the foregoing, the writ petitions are dismissed on account of maintainability.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions dismissed for maintainability (locus standi/standing of the petitioning association not established).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

All India BSNL-DOT Pensioners Association (Regd. No. S/68836/2010) CHQ, Dada Ghosh Bhavan, New Patel Nagar, New Delhi
All India BSNL-DOT Pensioners Association represented by its General Secretary, K.G. Jayaraj

Respondents

Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, New Delhi
Director, Department of Public Enterprises, Public Enterprises Bhavan, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises
Department of Telecommunications (DOT) represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunications, Government of India
Controller of Communications Accounts, Ministry of Communications, Office of the General Manager, Telecom, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram
Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL, BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi
Chief General Manager, BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. V. Suresh

Counsels for Respondents

• Krishna S., CGC
• Mathews K. Philip

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two writ petitions in WP(C) Nos. 5131/2021 and 22849/2021 were filed by the All India BSNL-DOT Pensioners Association. The petitions sought relief for pensioners linked to BSNL/DoT and apparently related to service-related schemes such as medical reimbursement and centralised allotment, as evidenced by the exhibits referencing BSNL medical reimbursement schemes and various Office Orders. The core procedural issue tackled by the Kerala High Court was maintainability and locus standi. The respondents raised objections that BSNL employees are central government employees and their grievances fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, and pointed to a Division Bench decision in Self Financing Arts and Science College Management Welfare Association v. M.G. University (2016 (4) KHC 293) to contend that the petitioning association lacks locus standi to file a writ under Article 226. The court invoked State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev (AIR 1964 SC 685) to reiterate that Article 226 writs require a rights-based foundation, and concluded that the petitioners have no locus standi and no right inviolably threatened. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed for want of maintainability, with the court noting the practitioner’s reliance on the cited precedents. Exhibits include medical reimbursement scheme documents, Office Orders, and representations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaAdministrative Tribunals Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Existence of a right is the foundation of a petition under Article 226 (State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev)
Appropriate writs can be issued under Article 226 only when a right is established; the jurisdiction is wide but is not to be used where a right is not proven; Locus standi principle

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt. The record primarily notes the respondents' objections to maintainability grounded on jurisdictional issues and locus standi, citing established precedents. The petitioners’ substantive pleadings and arguments are not reproduced in the excerpt.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued maintainability on two grounds: (i) BSNL employees are Central Government employees and their grievances should fall within the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act; (ii) the Division Bench decision in Self Financing Arts and Science College Management Welfare Association v. M.G. University (2016 (4) KHC 293) holding that the petitioning Association lacks locus standi to challenge Ext.P2/centralised processes. They rely on these authorities to contend lack of locus standi and right to file a writ under Article 226.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev	AIR 1964 SC 685	Positive	Cited to establish that Article 226 writs require the existence of a right and that the High Court’s jurisdiction, while wide, requires a valid right to invoke the writ.
Self Financing Arts and Science College Management Welfare Association v. M.G.University, Kottayam and others	2016 (4) KHC 293	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that the petitioner Association has no locus standi to maintain a writ petition; used to reject maintainability.
W.P.(C) No. 19729 of 2016	W.P.(C) No. 19729 of 2016	Mentioned Only	Referenced in the context of supporting authorities; not treated as a binding precedent within the reasoning presented.
Civil Appeal No. 399/2021	Civil Appeal No. 399/2021	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P9 cites a judgment in a Civil Appeal; discussed as context rather than as a controlling authority for the present order.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against All India BSNL-DOT Pensioners Association v Union of India and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 28TH POUSHA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 5131 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** ALL INDIA BSNL-DOT PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.NO. S/68836/2010) CHQ, DADA GHOSH BHAVAN, NEW PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI - 1100099, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, K.G. JAYARAJ, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, CHEMMUKATHU HOUSE, XXI/723, ASRAMAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA – 688006. BY ADV V.V.SURESH ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, NEW DELHI – 110003. 2 THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRIZES, PUBLIC ENTERPRISES BHAVAN, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, BLOCK NO. 14, C.C.O COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110003. 3 DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS(DOT) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 20, ASOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110001. 4 THE CONTROLLER OF COMMUNICATIONS ACCOUNTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695033. BY ADV KRISHNA S., CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).22849/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C)NOs.5131/2021 & 22849/2021** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 28TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22849 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** ALL INDIA BSNL-DOT PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, K.G. JAYARAJ, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN, CHEMMUKATHU HOUSE, XXI/723, ASRAMAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688006. BY ADV V.V.SURESH ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, BHARATH SANCHAR BHAVAN, H.C. MATHOOR LANE, NEW DELHI-110001. 2 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. BY ADV SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SC, BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).5131/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C)NOs.5131/2021 & 22849/2021** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[WP(C) Nos.5131/2021, 22849/2021]** The present writ petitions have been filed on behalf of the All India BSNL-DOT Pensioners Association. 2. Objection has been taken regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on two points: (i) The employees of the BSNL are Central Government Employees and grievance as expressed in the prayer would fall within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunals Act ie., before the Central Administrative Tribunal. (ii) The Division Bench of this Court in _**Self Financing Arts and Science College Management Welfare Association v. M.G.University, Kottayam and others** [2016 (4) KHC 293]_ made it clear that the Association has no locus standi to file the writ petition _._ Paragraphs 3, 8 and 9 of the judgment read thus : _“3. In State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev (AIR 1964 SC 685) a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide, the concluding words of that Article clearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can_ **WP(C)NOs.5131/2021 & 22849/2021** **4** _be issued in favour of a party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right is illegally invaded or threatened. Para.8 of the judgment reads thus;_ “8. .... Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court is undoubtedly very wide. Appropriate writs can be issued by the High Court under the said article even for purposes other than the enforcement of the fundamental rights and in that sense, a party who invokes the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is not confined to cases of W.P.(C)No.19729 of 2016 3 illegal invasion of his fundamental rights alone. But though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is wide in that sense, the concluding words of the article clearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of a party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right is illegally invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition under Article 226. ....... _8. In our view, the petitioner Association can have no grievance in the matter. At best, the members of the petitioner Association could have a grievance in the matter. If the members of the petitioner Association have any such grievance, it is for them to W.P.(C)No.19729 of 2016 7 approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking appropriate relief, after paying the requisite court fee._ _9. In the result, we hold that the petitioner Association has no locus standi to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P2 schedule for the Centralised Allotment Process for Undergraduate Courses-2016 and seeking consequential direction allowing the members of the petitioner Association to make admission to the seats, over and above the seats allotted in the 1st and 2nd allotment as per Ext.P2 schedule. ”_ **WP(C)NOs.5131/2021 & 22849/2021** **5** In view of the aforesaid, these writ petitions are dismissed on account of maintainability. **Sd/-** **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** nak **WP(C)NOs.5131/2021 & 22849/2021** **6** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22849/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF BSNL EMPLOYEES MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT SCHEME VIDE NO. BSNL/ADMN I DATED 28/02/2003. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO. BSNL/ADMN I/15-12/18 DATED 08/05/2020. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNION BEFORE THE CMD, BSNL DATED 21/05/2021. **7** ## **WP(C)NOs.5131/2021 & 22849/2021** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5131/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.| ||BSNL/26/SR/2002 DATED 07.08.2002.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OM NO.W-| ||02/0039/2017-DPE(WC) GL-XVI/20 DATED| ||19.11.2020 ISSUED BY DPE.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||09.01.2021 FILED BY THE GENERAL| ||SECRETARY ALL INDIA BSNL DOT PENSIONERS| ||ASSOCIATION.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM| ||ISSUED BY THE DPE DATED 04.02.2021.| |EXHIBIT P5|THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC| ||NO.26423/2020 DATED 17.12.2020.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS| ||HON'BLE COURT IN WPC. NO.29212/2020| ||DATED 17.02.2021.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE HON'BLE| ||MINISTER FOR HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC| ||ENTERPRISES COMMUNICATIONS DATED| ||03.03.2021.| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF HTE INSTRUCTION T PENSION| ||DISBURSING AUTHORITY VIDE NO.36-04-2008-| ||PEN (T)DT. 24-11-2010| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CIVIL| ||APPEAL NO:399/2021 DATED 08-02-2021| |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE BSNL| ||CORPORATE OFFICE DAED 27.10.2021.| **WP(C)NOs.5131/2021 & 22849/2021** **8** RESPONDENT EXHIBIT EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.09.2000 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF HTE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 09.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTIRES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES EXHIBIT R1© TRUE COPY OF THE WAGE AGREEMENT DATED 07.05.2010 EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.1/1/2020-E-II(B) DATED 23.04.2020 OF DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE MINISTRY OF FINANCE.