Anjani Kumar, Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) THE petitioner having been allowed to retire voluntarily under Voluntarily Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred V.R.S.) on 21.5.1994 has sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to count his service from 27.5.1964 to 2.6.1973 and to give him 5 years weightage in calculating benefit of V.R.S. or in the alternative to let him continue in service and revoke his V.R.S.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Supervisor Grade III under Chief Inspectorate of Textile and Clothing, Government of India, Ministry of Defence on 7th May, 1964 (Annexure-1). THE appointment was temporary and on probation of 2 years. He was declared quasi permanent w.e.f. 1st July, 1967 under Rules 3 and 4 of the Civilians in Defence Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949. In 1973, Export Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Council') advertised vacancy of technical officer. THE petitioner applied and after his selection, vide appointment letter dated 22nd September, 1973, he was appointed as technical officer in the pay scale of Rs. 300-600 in the Council. THE appointment was temporary and terminable without any notice. THE petitioner joined pursuant to the said appointment at Bhadohi and continued to work under the said Council. THE Council is an undertaking of Government of India and a subsidiary company of State Trading Corporation of India Limited. It is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In 1993, the Council took a decision to close down export inspection agencies and offered a golden handshake permitting V.R.S. to its employees vide scheme dated 21st May, 1994, (Annexure-4). THE petitioner submitted his option for accepting V.R.S. on 19th July, 1994, alongwith a representation that his service rendered as Technical Supervisor under Ministry of Defence, Chief Inspector of Textile and Clothing should be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits. Respondent No. 2, accepted his application for V.R.S. on 19th July, 1994, itself and he was relieved on 10 August, 1994. In the meantime he made various representations including dated 26.8.1998 and 27.6.1998 to respondent No. 2 to give benefit of the said period when he has worked in Government of India. THE petitioner also made a representation to the Director, Ministry of Defence and thereafter preferred this writ petition. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and therefore, his writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He has received and enjoyed a huge amount under V.R.S. as long back as in 1995 and now after lapse of about five years, has filed this writ petition for reopening an issue which is a closed chapter. It is pointed out that V.R.S. scheme was accepted by 870 persons including the petitioner and 991 persons did not accept but opted to continue in service. Under the scheme the petitioner has accepted and was paid over Rs. 3.38 lakhs and now after such a long time he has filed this petition. It is also pointed out that earlier also he filed Writ Petition No. 43851 of 1999, with same cause of action in which there were 21 petitioners including the present petitioner and without disclosing the factum of the aforesaid writ petition, this second writ petition has been filed and therefore, it s liable to be dismissed under Chapter XXII, Rule 7 of the Rules of the Court. On merits it is pointed out that there is no provision under law entitling the petitioner to count his past services rendered in Ministry of Defence Government of India. V.R.S. was voluntary and was not forced upon him. If he was not satisfied with his option, he should not have accepted it and petitioner should not have received monetary benefits thereunder. It is not open to the petitioner to resile therefrom now. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit wherein he has reiterated averments made in the writ petition by generally denying the averments of the counter-affidavit.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Assailing V.R.S. Scheme and seeking a mandamus for giving 5 years weightage, the petitioner and 20 others have filed Writ Petition No. 43851 of 1999 wherein the following reliefs have been sought. (A) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and declaring the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 19.7.1994 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), as ultra vires ; (B) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to work as regular employees of the respondents as if they have never filled the form of option under Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 19.7.1994 ; (C) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus permitting the petitioners to discharge their function as they are performing prior to 19.7.1994 and their continuity of service may be maintained ; (D) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant facilities of 33% commutation of pension and 67% of regular pension ; (E) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus granting the respondents to grant 5 years of weightage in payment of ex-gratia who has completed 20 years service ; (F) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant all the reliefs which has been granted to the employees who have completed 20 years of service, to those employees also who have not completed 20 years of service ; (G) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to grant all the reliefs to the petitioners after 19.7.1994 which is being given to other Central Government employees after retirement, as per the provision of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 ; (H) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; and (I) to award costs in favour of the petitioners. ;