TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) IN this Writ Application the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of nandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay retiral and other legal dues to the petitioner and further, to release him from service with effect from 31.01.1999 by accepting his offer to voluntarily retire from service in terms of the letter dated 12.10.1999 issued by Senior Manager (Personnel) addressed to the petitioner. The petitioner further prays for quashing the letter dated 3.4.2000 as contained in Annexure -11 addressed to the petitioner and issued by the Group General Manger informing him that in supersession of all previous correspondence, the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement from the service of the Company with effect from 31.01.1999 has not been accepted by the Company.
(2.) THE short facts which are necessary to be taken note of are that in the year 1969 the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant of the respondent No. 1 for their unit at Bbkaro Steel City. He was promoted from time to time the last of which being in the year 1996 to the post of Manager (Public Relations). According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 Company introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme for purposes of reducing the manpower and thereby making the Company economically viable. The petitioner has further stated that out of 14,000 employees, 4,000 have already voluntarily retired under the said scheme and out of 7,000 employees of Bokaro Unit, 2400 were released under the said Scheme. According to the petitioner, he also opted to voluntarily retire with effect from 31.10.1999 and therefore he filed an application to that effect on the printed format supplied by the Company on 8.9.1999. The petitioner has stated that after verification and clearance from the vigilance and the other departments and after being fully satisfied, the respondent No. 3 (Group General Manager) recommended and forwarded the application to the competent authority at Calcutta for acceptance. Thereafter the Chairman -cum -Managing Director, being also fully satisfied accepted his offer to retire with effect from 31.10.1999 and accordingly a letter was prepared in the name of the petitioner through the Group General Manager on 12.10.1999 being letter No. HO/PF (04521)/4044/N -2311 informing the petitioner that his request for voluntary retirement had been accepted by the Management and that he would retire from the services of the Company with effect from the afternoon of 31.10.1999 subject to vigilance and disciplinary clearance. At paragraph 14 of the Writ Application, the petitioner has stated that the above mentioned letter was not officially given to the petitioner, but nevertheless he could get a copy of the same subsequently from the Calcutta Office which did not obtain any receipt from the petitioner. This paragraph, i.e., paragraph 14 of the Writ Application has been answered at paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit wherein the respondents have stated that the letter/order dated 12.10.1999 was not communicated to the petitioner considering pending matters of serious nature and the respondent No. 3 was duty bound to see that all such matters were settled both in the interest of the Company as also in the interest of the employees and in public interest. It has further been stated that when the order was not communicated, the petitioner has obtained a copy of the same in a fraudulent way and the same is not expected from an executive like the petitioner and in any event such conduct on his part is not appreciable under the Rules of the Company.
(3.) THE petitioner has further stated that since the respondents and especially the Group General Manager (respondent No. 3) was not releasing the aforementioned letter, he therefore, wrote to him on 26.12.1999 vide Annexure -3 wherein he demanded that the same be released and/or handed over to him so that he may be able to voluntarily retire. A similar letter was again sent on 1.11.1999 but nothing happened. Thereafter the petitioner left Bokaro Steel City and went to Delhi for some urgent work. In the meantime on 29.10.1999 while referring to his letter dated 26.10.1999 i.e., Annexure -3, the Group General Manager wrote to the petitioner informing him that his application for voluntary retirement was still in process and that there were other "impending matter which required to be cleared before conveying acceptance". It appears that yet another letter being in reply to the demand of the petitioner made on 1.11.1999 (Annexure -4) the Group General Manager again wrote 2.11.1999 informing the petitioner that it was once again being confirmed that he had been duly informed that he was not being released under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme with effect from 31.10.1999 and that his absence from duty would be unauthorized and therefore he was asked to immediately join. In reply to the aforementioned letter the petitioner wrote on 8.11.1999 (Annexure -7) and sent a fax informing the Group General Manager that he was out of Bokaro Steel City till 15th November, 1999 and therefore he may be allowed earned leave and that he would be absenting till resumption of his duty. On 22.11.1999 the petitioner again wrote to the Group General Manager wherein he stated that as per advise of the management and also being law abiding, he had joined his duties on 19.11.1999 after returning with a hope that the management would appreciate his views and release him under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme since the same had already been accepted vide letter dated 12.10.1999. Copy of the aforementioned letter is Annexure -8 to the Writ Application. Getting no response, the petitioner again sent a representation on 5.1.2000 by Annexure -9 addressed to the Chair man -cum - Managing Director whereafter he again wrote to the Group General Manager and a copy thereof was sent to the Chair man -cum -Managing Director by letter dated 6.3.2000 (Annexure -10). It is thereafter that on 3.4.2000 the Group General Manager informed the petitioner that the application for voluntary retirement had not been accepted by the Company. In the counter affidavit a stand has been taken that Annexure -2 was conditional and that it was never served upon the petitioner. They have further stated that the petitioner has obtained a copy of the order (Annexure -2) in a fraudulent way which is not "appreciable" and thus his conduct Is "questionable". This has been stated at paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. They have further stated that the order of acceptance of voluntary retirement dated 12.10.1999 may not be given effect to in the light of the preliminary submissions aforesaid, i.e., submissions to the effect that the petitioner has obtained the same fraudulently and that it was a conditional letter.;