M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the other dated 25.8.2005, whereby he has been relieved from the service of the respondents -Company under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
(2.) PETITIONER 'scase is that in the year 2002 respondents - Hindustan Copper Limited introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2002 with effect from 1.3.2002 for a period of 15 days i. e. till 15.3.2002. Petitioner opted for the voluntary retirement but the same was rejected by the respondents. Petitioner again opted for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme re -introduced by the respondent - Company in January 2003, but no decision was taken by the Respondent -authority. Petitioner, therefore, withdrew his option by sending letter -dated 23.2.2003. It is contended that respondents were to willing to accept the option given by the petitioner and kept the matter pending for the entire 2003 -04 and never responded to the letter of the petitioner dated 23.2.2003. All of a sudden despite the withdrawal of the option given by the petitioner, respondents arbitrarily issued a letter dated 25.8.2005 relieving the petitioner from the service of the Company at the close of working hours on the same date. Respondent -Company filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that in the Office Order by which application for voluntary retirement was invited, it was categorically mentioned that Management reserves the right to accept or reject the application for voluntary retirement. On 18.1.2003 petitioner as Manager (material) submitted his application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme through proper channel. The same was received on 18.1.2003 and was forwarded to Head Office for appropriate action. Petitioner submitted his Voluntary Retirement Scheme application exercising option given under Rule 7.3 and 7.4 of the scheme and he made special request that he may be released by the end of March 2003. The said application dated 18.1.2003 was forwarded by the Executive Director to the Chairman -cum -Managing Director on the same day. The matter was discussed at the Head Office level and it was decided and confirmed that respondent will be able to release the persons seeking voluntary retirement. Further case of the respondent is that before approval of voluntary retirement, it was imperative to obtain clearance from the Chief Manger (Vigilance), On 17th August, 2005 the Chief Manager (Vigilance), Head Office had given clearance vide memo dated 5th August, 2005. This was finally approved by the Chairman -cum -Managing Director on 19th August, 2005. The Deputy G.M. (P&A) Head Quarter communicated the same by FAX dated 20th August, 2005 to the Acting G.M./ICC, Ghatsila and finally by fax dated 29th July, 2005, it has been decided to accept the voluntary retirement sought for by the petitioner. The FAX message was received by ICC, Ghatsila on 22nd August, 2005. On 25th August, 2005, the Chief Manager (Personnel) communicated to the petitioner that his request for voluntary retirement has been accepted and accordingly he was relieved from the service of the Company.
(3.) THE admitted facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are that in the year 2002, the respondent -Company came with Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2002 effective from 1.3.2002 till 15.3.2002. Petitioner opted for voluntary retirement under the said scheme but the same was rejected by the Corporation. Respondent -Company again reintroduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in January 2003. Petitioner submitted application on 18.1.2003 for voluntary retirement under the said scheme. According to the respondents, the said application of the petitioner was accepted on 19.8.2005 by the Chairman of the Corporation and a Fax to that effect was sent on 22.8.2005 to their Ghatsila office and from there the impugned letter of acceptance was communicated to the petitioner on 25.8.2005. Petitioner said to have withdrew his option for voluntary retirement on 23.2.2003.;