Decided on May 11,2005

Vinod Acharya Appellant
Food Corporation Of India And Ors. Respondents


Mr. L.C. Bhadoo, J. - (1.) WRIT Petition No. 3842/2004 filed by D.P. Rajput, who was working as Assistant Manager in the Food Corporation of India Writ Petition No. 4429/2004 filed by Ramavtar Sharma, who was working as Assistant Grade -I (D)in the Food Corporation of India, Writ Petition No.3501/ 2004 filed by P.R. K. Rao who was working as Assistant Manager (Q.C), in the Food Corporation of India, Writ Petition No. 3678/04 filed by Vinod Acharya, who was working as Assistant Manager (Q.C), in the Food Corporation of India, Writ Petition No. 4059/2004 filed by Manharan Lal Gupta, who was working as Assistant Grade -Ill (Depot) and Writ petition NO. 4104/ 2004 filed by Nilkanth Pd. Sharma, who was working as Assistant Grade -II (D) in the Food Corporation of India are being disposed of by this common order as in all these writ petitions the interpretation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the respondent -Corporation vide Circular No. EP -01 -2004 -16 dated 29.6.2004 is involved. The petitioners' case in these writ petitions is that the respondent -Corporation floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme for its employees vide its Circular No. EP -01 -2004 -16 dated 29 -6 -2004 and time period of that scheme was three months i.e. from 29.6.2004 to 29 -9 -2004. In the first instance, the petitioners, who were the employees of the respondent Corporation, submitted their applications seeking voluntary retirement in pursuance of the said scheme. However, later on the petitioners submitted application for withdrawal for their applications seeking voluntary retirement, but respondent Corporation did not accept the same, on the other hand accepted their application for voluntary retirement. Therefore, the petitioners have questioned the legality, propriety and validity of the orders of respondent -Corporation whereby the respondent Corporation accepted the voluntary retirement applications of the petitioners' inspite of the fact that same were withdrawn by them. Therefore, the question involved in these petitions is that whether the action of the respondents -Corporation not permitting the petitioners to withdraw their applications for seeking voluntary retirement is illegal and arbitrary.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are that in order to achieve man -power rationalization with a view to minimizing the cost of Food Corporation of India, the Corporation had launched the Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide Annexure P -1 dated 29 -6 -2004. Sub -Para (2) of the Preamble of the scheme envisages that: The Corporation will have the right not to grant voluntary retirement to any of officers/officials for the reasons to be recorded -in writing. In sub -Para (3) of Para (1) it was made known to the employees of the respondent Corporation that: The scheme will be in operation for a period of three months from the date of issuance of circular and the Corporation will have right to accept the requests for voluntary retirement on the principle of first come first served basis. The scope of the scheme was that it was open to the permanent employees of the Corporation i.e. Direct recruits, Food Transferees, who have opted either for Central Govt. pensionary benefits or for FCI retrial benefits and to the absorbed deputationists.
(3.) AS to the eligibility, it was made clear that: Only permanent employees of the Corporation will be eligible and they may seek voluntary retirement by giving three months notice in writing to the competent authority within the prescribed limit. However, the competent authority was entitled to make the payment of notice period of three months or for the remaining period of notice period and was entitled to accept the request for voluntary retirement form any date before the date of expiry to notice period. In sub -Para (3) of Para -4 of the eligibility criteria it was made clear that: "Application for voluntary retirement would be examined with reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings etc, if any against the employees . The request for voluntary retirement would be considered keeping in mind the circumstances of each case with a view to ensure that it is extended to such employees whose services could be dispensed without detriment to the Corporation. Care shall be taken to ensure that highly skilled and qualified officers and staff are not given the option. Further, voluntary retirement could be denied where departmental proceedings have been initiated or are contemplated or where the prosecution is either contemplated or has actually been launched against the employee concerned: Para -7 of the scheme relates about the competent authority, envisages that: The appointing authorities for the purpose of above Scheme would be the authorities to accept or reject an application for Voluntary Retirement. Para -8 relates to the Procedure and sub -Para (a) of Para -8 envisages that: An eligible employee may submit an application for voluntary retirement under this scheme to the competent authority through proper channel in the prescribed proforma. Sub -para (b) of Para -8 envisages that: The voluntary retirement of the employee under this scheme would be subject to vigilance clearance. Sub -Para (c) of Para -8 envisages that; The scheme does not confer any right on any employee to have his request for voluntary retirement accepted The Corporation will have full discretion to accept or reject the request for voluntary retirement of any employee, keeping in view the service record, organizational requirement and any other relevant factors in this regard. Sub -para (d) of Para -8 envisages that;;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.