N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are employees of the Bharat Gold Mines Limited which is a Government of India Enterprise. Their service conditions are governed by the rulesframed by the Management. Regarding the age of retirement, the rules speak that thenormal age of 58 years for retirement may be extended by 2 years. The petitionershave worked for more than 2 decades in different capacity. Later, they submitted anapplication requesting the respondents/management to permit them to retire fromservice voluntarily. In support of their case, reliance was placed on the Notificationbearing No. PD/oe-KM/v. 1/1989-90/2125, dated 17-10-1989 produced atannexure-A. But, their requests were not considered by the Management. On theother hand, the Management said that the retirement of the petitioners on voluntarybasis cannot be granted as their services are required by the Management. In supportof their contentions, the respondents produced Annexures R-1 arid R-2. Annexurer-1 reads as follows:"bharat GOLD MINES LIMITED (A Government of India Enterprise)PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT"argent",oorgaum P. O. , Kolargold Fields - 563 120,karnataka State. Ref. No. PD/oe/vrs/1990-91/362. 17th August, 1990. CIRCULARSub. : Voluntary Retirement Schemeafter issue of Notification No. PD/oe-KM/v. 1/1989-90/2125, dated17-10-1989 with regard to Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the employees ofb. G. M. L. many employees started seeking clarification as to what were theprobable grounds on which such applications were being considered since manycases have not been accepted. The issue was discussed with the Bharat Gold Mines Employees' Union inone of the meetings and the objectives of the scheme was explained in detail. However, it is hereby clarified that the applications for Voluntary Retirementwould be normally considered provided that:i) an employee seeking Voluntary Retirement is considered as surpluscategory and that the post held by the employee is no more required;ii) that the employee has six years left for retirement and;iii) on economic grounds. Sd/-CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER". Annexure R-2 reads thus:"telegram: "gold MINE" Telephone: KGF 6362bharat GOLD MINES LIMITED (A Government of India Enterprise)PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT"argent",oorgaum Post,k. G. F.- 563 120,karnataka State. Application No. 1736rcf. No. PD/de-VRS/1990-91/36 Dated: 10-2-1992. T. S. Dorairajpe No. 015192l and E Moving DPTR Mine/department Central, Transport Departmentsub. : Voluntary Retirementpleace refer to your application submitted for Voluntary Retirement inresponse to the Notification No. PD/de-KM/v. 1/1989-90/2125, dated 17thoctober, 1989. The prime objectives of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced is toreduce the surplus manpower wherever it exists and to bring in economy. No. PD/de-VRS/1990-91/36 Dated: 10-2-1992. T. S. Dorairajpe No. 015192l and E Moving DPTR Mine/department Central, Transport Departmentsub. : Voluntary Retirementpleace refer to your application submitted for Voluntary Retirement inresponse to the Notification No. PD/de-KM/v. 1/1989-90/2125, dated 17thoctober, 1989. The prime objectives of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced is toreduce the surplus manpower wherever it exists and to bring in economy. The Committee constituted for this purpose has examined your case keepingin view the objectives of the scheme, and other factors for consideration asstipulated vide Circular No. PD/oe/vrs/1991-92/ 362, dated 17-8-1990 andpd/de/vrs/1991-92/778, dated 18-6-1991 and has not recommenced yourcase for voluntary retirement on the following ground/grounds:1. There is no surplus manpower available in the category to which youbelong. 2. The post held by you is a statutory/essential one and there are no ad-ditional men in the essential category/men with statutory qualifica-tion available to replace your position. 3. On economic grounds it is not feasible to accept your request forvoluntary retirement. Hence, we express our inability to accept your request for Voluntaryretirement and kindly bear with us. Sd/-CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER". Aggrieved by the stand of the Management, the petitioners filed these writ petitionsfor a direction to the respondents to retire the petitioners from the service of Bharatgold Mines Limited in accordance with the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and togrant them all the consequential benefits to which they are entitled in pursuance ofthe notification dated 17-10-1989, Annexure-A, issued by the respondents includingfinancial and all other benefits and also for quashing the orders similar to Annexurer-2 issued to other petitioners rejecting their requests for permission to retire volun-tary. ( 2 ) SRI Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that after all it is the choice of the workers whether to continue in service or not unless their voluntaryretirement from service is prohibited by the service regulations. The serviceregulations of the petitioners are silent on this aspect and, therefore, refusal ofpermission for voluntary retirement is quite arbitrary and without an authority oflaw. In support of his contention, Sri Subba Rao placed reliance on the decision ofthis Court in Writ Appeal No. 1979 of 1990, decided on 15-10-1990, confirming myorder dated 10-7-1990 in Writ Petition No. 10181 of 1990 wherein it is said that themanagement cannot compell an employee who is unwilling to work. For thesereasons, he submits that the writ petitions be allowed and the relief sought for begranted. For thesereasons, he submits that the writ petitions be allowed and the relief sought for begranted. ( 3 ) WHEREAS, Sri Holla, learned counsel for the Management, submits that the request of the petitioners cannot be granted for the reason that their services arerequired by the respondents. He submits that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme wasnot in existence earlier and it came into existence as a special scheme. The questionof granting permission to retire voluntarily arises only when the staff is surplus. Onthe other hand, the staff available as on today is not surplus and in view of the rulessubsequently amended by the Management by Annexure R-1 the request of thepetitioners cannot be considered as the Management is in financial difficulties. Therespondent/company is incurring loss every year and, if the petitioners are nowpermitted to retire voluntarily, the company has to shell down huge amount in theform of gratuity, etc. According to him, the order of the Division Bench of this Courthas no application. According to him the decision in Dinesh Chandra Sangma vstate of Assam and Others, AIR 1978 SC 17 is applicable. Lastly, he submits thateven on humanitarian grounds the request of the petitioners cannot be considered,because now if the petitioners are permitted to retire voluntarily, hundreds ofemployee will come forward with a request to permit them to retire voluntarily andin such an event it will be very difficult for the Management to settle their claims asthe Company is under loss. For these reasons Sri Holla submits that the petitions bedismissed. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing both sides, I am of the view that no doubt there will be some difficulty for the Management to settle the claims of the employees who takevoluntary retirement. However, the relationship of employer and employee willcome to an end at the time one attains superannuation or at the time of voluntaryretirement or compulsory retirement. In the case of compulsory retirement, it is thediscretion that is given to the Management or the Employer to retire an unwantedemployee irrespective of whether the employee's strength is surplus or otherwise. Whereas, voluntary retirement is the choice given to an employee. For the reasonbest known to him he can seek for his retirement voluntarily without any objectionfrom the Management. The factors of financial stringency, non-surplus staff ofrequirement of service of the employees arc not sufficient grounds to refuse therequest for voluntary retirement. Whereas, voluntary retirement is the choice given to an employee. For the reasonbest known to him he can seek for his retirement voluntarily without any objectionfrom the Management. The factors of financial stringency, non-surplus staff ofrequirement of service of the employees arc not sufficient grounds to refuse therequest for voluntary retirement. Further, the request for voluntary retirement can berefused only when the rules or the service conditions give such option to theemployer. Ofcourse, Sri Holla learned counsel for the Management made areference to Annexure R-l and R-2 which entitled the Management to refuse therequest for voluntary retirement. But the notification at Annexure R-l has beenmade unilaterally and not after the consultation with majority of the members of thecompany who applied for voluntary retirement. Financial stringency or slackness intransaction or any other economic factor cannot be a ground to refuse the request forvoluntary retirement. After all in service jurisprudence, voluntary retirement is thechoice given to employees like the choice conferred on the authorities in respect ofcompulsory retirement. As far as retirement is concerned, it is a bilateral act by wayof agreement between the parties. However, even if any hardship will be causedwhen voluntary retirement is sought, the employer is duty bound to accept the same. Otherwise, it amounts to compel a person to work against his will which is not onlyagainst the public policy but also a forced labour. Apart from these, the decision indinesh Chandras's case, AIR 1978 SC 17 on which reliance was placed by Sri Hollais infact more in favour of the contentions of the petitioners, viz. , there cannot be anyprohibition for seeking voluntary retirement unless such voluntary retirement is witha view to escape the enquiry that is under contemplation for serious offences allegedor such retirement is to escape the order as suspension or to escape the liability ofanswering the Management for the loss caused to it, etc. In the instant case, however,sri Holla submits that it is very difficult for the Management to accept the request ofthe petitioners to pay all the emoluments, etc. , unless it is ascertained from theconcerned section whether the petitioners are liable to pay any dues towards anyamount drawn in excess under any head or before other requirements to be fulfilledby the petitioners before going out of the Company. , unless it is ascertained from theconcerned section whether the petitioners are liable to pay any dues towards anyamount drawn in excess under any head or before other requirements to be fulfilledby the petitioners before going out of the Company. It is needless to say that alwaysthe employer will have such power to enquire into those aspects and then to passappropriate orders for voluntary retirement. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allowed and the respondents/management is directed to permit the petitioners to retire voluntarilyand to pay them all the benefits which they are entitled to with reference toannexure-A and holding enquiry and satisfying that the petitioners are not due theany amount to the Management, as expediliously as possible. --- *** --- .