Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) A group of employees numbering 325 have come with the application after obtaining Voluntary Retirement Scheme in terms of the Circular dated 10th March, 2003. In fact, they have received substantially the benefit of the above Scheme. In this writ petition they have asked for the following reliefs : (a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith lease the quarters of the petitioners as per the terms and conditions with the Priyadarshini Private Profitable School; (b) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to recover the interim relief paid earlier being part of the salary, pending wage revision; (c) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner salary till the date they were actually released ; (d) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw the application of V.R. In respect of the petitioners as per the 137 employees and Sri Goutam Kumar Bose; 108 executives and to transfer them to the other units of IISCO; (e) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to maintain a 100 bed hospital at Kulti to provide treatment to the petitioners and their family as assured by issuing medical cards ; (f) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioners closure allowance as is applicable to the employees of Government of India Undertaking on its closure ; (g) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioners the amount equal to LTC/LLTC for the block years 1998-1999 to which they would have been entitled, had there not been the purported orders of voluntary retirement under threat of retrenchment; (h) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to extend the petitioners all payments at par with the payment made to those beyond the age group of 54 years and above and/or the amount being paid to the employees beyond the age group of 54 years; (i) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to review and reconsider the valuation of the quarters as per the policy adopted in case of employees of Durgapur Steel Plant; (j) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioners unpaid amount of gratuity, which has not been paid so far due to the retention of the quarters which are to be leased out to the petitioners; (k) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioners the benefit of voluntary retirement as per the benefits which have been paid to the other employees of the other units of SAIL and which is again likely to be reintroduced by the SAIL, in which the employees have been paid the salary in every quarter till the date of superannuation; (1) A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents to produce or cause to be produced all relevant records, papers and documents in connection with the differential treatment to the petitioners and denial of the legitimate benefits, so that conscionable justice may be rendered by quashing the same; It is clear from the prayer as above and the facts stated in the petition that the petitioners and each of them have alleged firstly that they were not willing to accept the Voluntary Retirement Scheme but they were forced to accept it because of threat of losing their jobs. Even the respondents concerned have meted out discrimination while implementing the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. They say that as, in case of 108 executives, staff and other 137 employees, their applications for Voluntary Retirement Scheme were allowed to be withdrawn and after closure of Kulti Unit they were transferred to the Burnpur Unit of the respondent No. 1 meaning thereby that they have been retained in their services. In case of the petitioners this procedure has not been followed and discriminating methodology for implementation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme was kept secret. As such, the application already submitted by the petitioners and each of them would have been allowed to be withdrawn.
(2.) Besides that, the respondents and each of them are not implementing each and every term and condition of the V.R. Scheme and some of them are still left outstanding and to be fulfilled by the respondents.
(3.) Mr. Moloy Kumar Basu, Learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, contends that the option exercised by the petitioners and each of them and acceptance thereof by the respondents is bad in law as this was compelled to be done under threat. It is settled position of law that any contract entered into under thereat or coercion is not enforceable and vitiates with illegality. Moreover so, a section of the employees have been picked up to be favoured with retention in the employment with the mode of transfer to some other units whereas these petitioners have been eased with termination from their employment.;