SHIVARAJ V.PATIL J. - (1.) LEAVE granted. In this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 5/12/1997 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh at Gauhati made in Writ Appeal No. 124/96. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are the following.
(2.) THE appellant joined the services of the respondent-corporation in 1973 as Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator. After passing LL.B degree examination, she was promoted to the post of legal Assistant in 1981. Subsequently she was promoted as Assistant Law Officer, Law Officer and finally as Senior Law Officer in 1995 [re-designated as Deputy Manager (Law)]. In 1992 the respondent-corporation issued a special scheme "AIDC Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1992" (for short the 'scheme') as a special measure in the form of a golden handshake providing an option to its employees for voluntary retirement who had completed 10 years of service in the Corporation or 40 years of age. The appellant having served the respondent-corporation for nearly 23 years and attaining the age of 42 years with a view to avail the benefit of the Scheme, made an application on 7/12/1995 seeking voluntary retirement in the form prescribed, requesting to accept her option for voluntary retirement with immediate effect. The recommending authority on the same day recommended for accepting her voluntary retirement. Voluntary retirement ought to have come into effect with immediate effect. Since the appellant was not allowed to hand over the charge and there was none to take over charge from her and certain other official formalities were also left to be carried out, she was compelled to continue to attend to her duties. When there was no response from the respondent-corporation till third week of January, 1996, she wrote a letter dated 23/1/1996 to the Managing Director of the respondent-corporation stating that she had come to know that her application for voluntary retirement would be placed before the Board of Directors and that there was no need for the same as under the Scheme Managing Director himself was the competent authority to accept application of her voluntary retirement. No reply was given to the said letter. The appellant addressed a letter dated 14/2/1996 to the Chairman of the respondent- corporation stating that the failure of the respondent-corporation to accept her voluntary retirement has caused great inconvenience and that she was entitled to get her voluntary retirement accepted forth with In the said letter also she made it clear that in the absence of any specific order she would consider herself to be free person without any obligations to the respondent-corporation and her contract of service would stand determined with effect from the date of submission of her application for voluntary retirement. Further in the said letter she stated that in case there was any delay, she would presume that her voluntary retirement was deemed to have been accepted with effect from 15/2/1996 and that she would not attend her duties any more. The appellant wrote a third letter to the Managing Director of the respondent-corporation on 15/2/1996 requesting for payment of retirement benefits under the Scheme. Strangely the Managing Director of the respondent-corporation issued a show cause notice dated 15/16.2.1996, which was received by the appellant on 17/2/1996. In the said show cause notice it was stated that the appellant had been participating in the political activities of the BJP and that she intended to contest the election on a BJP ticket which amounted to misconduct and as such a reply was sough for the same. Under the circumstances, the appellant approached the High Court by filing! Writ Petition Civil Rule No. 816/96 seeking reliefs that the appellant was no longer employee of the respondent-corporation having gone on voluntary retirement with effect from 7.12.1995 and to direct the respondent- corporation to give all retirement benefits by setting aside the show cause notice dated 15/16.2.1996. The learned Single Judge accepted tne case of the appellant and granted relief The respondent-corporation aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge took up the matter in appeal and the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant urged that there was no requirement of three months prior notice in the Scheme, the option of voluntary retirement ought to have been accepted with immediate effect; the respondent-corporation, having offered that the Scheme was a golden and unique opportunity to eligible employees, was bound to accept the application of the appellant seeking voluntary retirement when all the conditions of the Scheme were satisfied. It was further contended that Dinesh Chander Sangma's case referred to in the judgment under appeal fully supports the case of the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent- corporation while supporting the judgment and order impugned in this appeal submitted that the filing of the writ petition was pre-mature as three months period from the date of the application seeking voluntary retirement was not yet over. Under Clause 8.1 of the Scheme, the respondent-corporation had discretion either to accept or to reject the request of any employee for voluntary retirement viewing the organizational requirement and any other relevant factors in this regard and that the appellant had no vested right to claim for acceptance of the voluntary retirement.;