SH G L SHARMA SON OF SHRI JUGGAL KISHORE SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent may be directed to grant voluntary retirement to the petitioner and pay retiral benefits to him as per the NTPC Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2004 circulated w.e.f. 1.12.2004.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the petitioner is serving in the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC). He had Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes earlier also applied for grant of voluntary retirement which prayer was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat which was dismissed in limine vide order dated 18.6.2004. Thereafter, a fresh scheme was floated by the NTPC which was operative from 1.12.2004 to 31.1.2005 called the NTPC Voluntary On 5th January, 2005, the Retirement Scheme-2004. petitioner sought voluntary retirement under the aforesaid scheme. As per the requirement of the scheme an official should have completed the age of 50 years and should have put in six years' service in the grade entitling him to be considered for voluntary retirement. The petitioner was short of the age limit for few months but the main ground on which his request was rejected was that he had only completed 1.5 years' service in the grade as against 6 years of service required in the E5 grade.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that his case was never considered at the corporate level by the Head Office and it was rejected at the project level itself. This argument is totally unfounded. From the record, I find that the petitioner had sent various representations through one Dr.Ram Barot, Former Deputy Member of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to the Secretary, Ministry of Power and the Minister concerned. Thereafter, his case was examined at the corporate level and at the corporate level it was pointed out that in no case relaxation has been given for more than one and half year's and therefore the matter was rejected. As far as the relaxation in other years is concerned, in my view, each year the relaxation is different and every year employer can adopt a different criteria for relaxation of the norms. This will depends on the fact situation of each year.