M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.8.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1704 of 2000 (R) Vijay Bala Sinha Versus State Of Jharkhand whereby learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order as contained in letter dated 3.4.2000 whereby the petitioner -respondent was informed that his request for voluntary retirement from the service has not been accepted by the Company.
(2.) FACTS of the case lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner -respondent was in the services of the appellant Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited and appointed as a Junior Assistant. He was promoted from time to time and in 1996 he was holding the post of Manager (Public Relations). Appellant -Company introduced a voluntary Retirement Scheme for the purpose of reducing the manpower and thereby making the Company economically viable. According to the petitioner -respondent, he opted for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.1999 and, therefore, he filed an application to that effect on the printed format supplied by the Company on 8.9.1999. It is alleged that after verification and clearance from the vigilance and the other department and after being fully satisfied the Group General Manager recommended and forwarded the application to the competent authority at Calcutta for acceptance. Thereafter the Chairman -cum -Managing Director being fully satisfied accepted his offer for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.1999 and accordingly a letter was prepared in the name of the petitioner -respondent through the Group General Manager on 12.10.1999 informing the petitioner -respondent that his request for voluntary retirement had been accepted by the Management and that he would retire from the services of the Company w.e.f. the afternoon on 31.10.1999. The said letter was not officially given to the petitioner -respondent. However, the petitioner -respondent could get a copy of the same from Calcutta office. Petitioner -respondent 'scase was that since the Group General Manager of the Company was not releasing the said letter, he wrote letter on 26.10.1999 wherein he demanded that the same be released and handed over to him so that he may be able to voluntarily retire. In the meantime, appellant Company issued letter to the petitioner -respondent informing him that his application for voluntary retirement was still in process and that there were other impending matters which required to be cleared before conveying acceptance. Another letter was issued by the appellant -Company on 1.11.1999 informing the petitioner -respondent that he was not being released under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme w.e.f. 31.10.1999. Thereafter petitioner -respondent wrote several letters, addressed to Chairman -cum -Managing Director for voluntary retirement but the same had not been accepted by the Company.
(3.) THE case of the appellant -Company in the counter -affidavit was that the letter prepared for acceptance of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner -respondent was conditional and that it was never served upon the petitioner -respondent. Petitioner - respondent obtained a copy of the order in a fraudulent way. Appellants -respondents ' further case was that he was duly informed by the appellant -Company that his offer for voluntary retirement had not been accepted. Petitioner -respondent sent a letter vide letter dated 8.11.1999 informed the Group General Manager of the Company 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. Petitioner -respondent thereafter joined his duty on 19.11.1999.;