M.C.TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P. N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Sri H. M. Srivastava, learned counsels for the petitioner, Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 4, Sri Kaushlesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Sri P. K. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no.5. Parties have exchanged their affidavits. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer: - "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing letter dated 26.10.2010 issued by respondent No. 3 accompanying with letter dated 27.10.2010 issued by respondent No. 4 filed as Annexure No. 3 and order dated 04.11.2010 passed by respondent No. 1 filed as Annexure No. 7, so far it is against the petitioner. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to honour the letter dated 22.07.2010 issued by respondent No. 3 (filed as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition). iii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner".
(2.) THE petitioner who was an employee of Bharat Pump and Compressors Ltd. Naini Allahabad (hereinafter referred as 'BPCL') from 1984. In the month of March, 1989, he had been sent to Bharat Yantra Nigam Ltd., Allahabad (hereinafter referred as 'BYNL') on deputation. On 16.08.1991, the petitioner was absorbed in BYNL, Allahabad. BYNL, Allahabad is an under taking of Government of India and the same was holding company with 6 subsidiary companies. Finally the BYNL, Allahabad had undergone for winding up, then question arose regarding the absorption of the employees of said company. It is apparent from the record that two writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 53024 of 2007 (Raj Bali and others Vs. Union of India and others) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41655 of 2009 (Swadesh Kumar Kesarwani Vs. Union of India and others) had been filed by the employees of BYNL, Allahabad and both the writ petitions were decided by one common judgment dated 26.08.2009 with direction to appropriate authorities i.e. Government of India to consider the case of the employees giving fullest opportunities. In response to the direction issued by this Court, the Government of India in most sympathetic manner had taken a decision vide order dated 22.07.2010 for absorption of employees in order of preference. It is also relevant to mention here that only four companies, namely, BPCL Allahabad, B & R Kolkata, R & C Mumbai and TSL Naini, Allahabad amongst whom the option were to be given in order of preferences. As per record, 19 employees had given their option to be absorbed in the aforementioned subsidiary companies and as per claim of the petitioner he had given first option for absorption on the BPCL, Naini, Allahabad and B & R, Kolkata as second preference and R & C, Mumbai as third preference. The respondent No. 2 had served a letter dated 27.10.2010 accompanying with another letter dated 26.10.2010 had given option to the petitioner beyond the above mentioned four subsidiary companies to another subsidiary company know as TSPL Hospet, Karnataka and immediate response has been asked in this regard. It transpires that in response to the letter dated 27.10.2010, petitioner had submitted representation on 28.10.2010 before respondent No. 4 i.e. Managing Director, BYNL apprising him regarding his family problems with the request for absorption and requested that he may be given absorption only in BPCL. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that in response to the representation, the respondent No. 4 immediately exercised option as provided in Para -2 of the letter dated 26.10.2010, which provided voluntary retirement scheme to the petitioner. On account of decision of giving voluntary retirement, the petitioner being aggrieved had filed Original Application No. 1659 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad with following prayer: - i. to issue a suitable order or direction by way of quashing the letter dated 26.10.2010 written by respondent No. 2 and covering letter dated 27.10.2010 filed as Annexure No. A -3 to the Compilation No. II of Original Application. ii. to issue a suitable order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to honour the letter dated 22.07.2010 issued by respondent No. 2 filed as Annexure No. A -2. iii. to issue a suitable order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider, decide and dispose of the representation dated 28.10.2010 submitted by the petitioner filed as Annexure No. A -4.
(3.) BARE perusal of the decision taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, it is apparent that the letter dated 22.07.2010 which was sent by the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises to the Chairman & Managing Director of BYNL afforded alternative employment to 19 individuals with option for voluntary retirement scheme, in case the individuals were reluctant to join the subsidiary companies as indicated in the said letter and the said letter further modified vide order dated 26.10.2010 though not giving any reference to the earlier order so far whereby the applicant/petitioner was asked to join TSPL, Hospet Karnataka and in response to the letter dated 26.10.2010, the BYNL had advised the applicant/petitioner vide order dated 27.10.2010 to communicate on very same day his willingness to join TSPL. It is also apparent that by the same letter it had also been cautioned to the petitioner that in case he does not exercise the option to join in TSPL, he would be provided voluntary retirement scheme as other option. The learned Tribunal had also taken into consideration that the applicant/petitioner who submitted his representation dated 28.10.2010 for re -consideration of the decision of the Ministry and post him to TSL/BPCL Naini Allahabad so as to enable him to look after his ailing parents but subsequently, when he had not received any communication he has requested for ten days' time to join TSPL vide his application dated 02.11.2010. In Paragraph No. 3 of the order dated 04.11.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad has categorically mentioned as below: - "3. Counsel for the applicant has brought to our knowledge an endorsement beneath the aforesaid representation dated 02.11.2010 signed by the Chairman of the Managing Director of Bharat Yantra Nigam Limited which reads as under: - 'In view of Government directive for compliance by today (one week time) the request made is not agreed. Para (ii) of said order shall be implemented. Enclose VRS form". ;