AJIT KUMAR SINHA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for the following reliefs: a) For quashing the letter No. GOKO/KA/VI/04/303 dated 2/6.2.2004(annexure -5) issued under the signature of respondent No. 5 whereby and whereunder an non -est intimation has been made to the effect that application made by petitioner No. 1 under VRS(F) Scheme -1999 stood already rejected way back In the year 1999 itself on the ground of shortage of statutory requirement of 5 (five) years left out service, which is patently false, wrong, malafide and sheer example of colourable exercise of power. b) Further for commanding the respondents to produce the letter/order of rejection of claim/application of petitioner No. 1(if any) and accordingly to quash the same. c) For commanding the respondents to allow the benefit of said scheme and in turn grant suitable appointment to petitioner No. 2, the son of petitioner No. 1, who is a lady worker and in any case had duly applied in terms with the said scheme well within the time i.e. five years left out service. In the instant case the following facts are undisputed i.e. i) Petitioner was due to retire on 7.3.2005. ii) VRS(F) Scheme, 1999 was invoked by the petitioner and the same was rejected on 6.2.2004 pursuant to the order dated 26.8.03 passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 4230/03 and the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of rejection on the ground of delay.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, as set out as under: The son of petitioner No. 1, initially preferred a writ petition W.P.(S) No. 4230 of 2003. However, the same was dismissed as not maintainable with a direction to respondent authority to dispose of the application of. Voluntary retirement given by the mother of the petitioner therein. In compliance to the aforesaid, an order was passed on 6.2.2004 rejecting the application on the ground that less than five years were left before superannuation and thus, as per the Scheme offer of V.R.S. could not be accepted. The aforesaid impugned order dated 6.2.2004 has been challenged in the present writ petition by the petitioner No. 1 seeking acceptance of voluntary retirement as well as appointment of petitioner No. 2 in her place as per scheme, who is the son of petitioner No. 1. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the reason assigned is on the face of It erroneous and misconceived since the petitioner's application was within the time schedule and instead the authority/Management caused the delay in processing it and thus, they cannot take the benefit of their own default.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent namely Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta in reply submits that VRS(F) Scheme, as per the settled law is subject to acceptance and communication of the acceptance to make it binding and enforceable under the Contract Act. He further submits that the net result remains that the offer was rejected.;