Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 461 (JHR)

Sukhdeo Mandal v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.

2002-04-05

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.2.2000 and dated 29.5.2000 issued under the signature of respondent Nos. 2 and 5, namely, the Director (Personnel) and the Chief Manager (Personnel), Hindustan Copper Ltd. whereby the petitioner is alleged to have been forcibly retired under the threat of terminating his services. 2. Petitioners case is that he was appointed in 1995 as Assistant Engineer (Metalurgy). After successfully completing his training he worked to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and after promotion reached to the post of Chief Manager (CONC). On 2.6.1999 he received a confidential letter from the respondents stating that with the reduced production target he had been identified as surplus. On 4.2.2000 another letter was issued by the respondents directing him either for voluntary retirement or else his services will be terminated. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 29.2.2000 he was forced to sign an application for voluntary retirement. However, on 22.5.2000 he prayed for withdrawal of the said application for voluntary retirement. On 29.5.2000 the petitioner was informed that he would be released from service of the company at the close of the working hours on 31.5.2000. The petitioner, thereafter, filed several representations against the order releasing him from service. Petitioners further case is that similarly 32 officers were also identified as surplus but they have been accommodated in different Mines and Plants by the respondents. It is further alleged that 10 other persons who were forced to fill up voluntary retirement applications, like the petitioner, were taken back after cancelling their voluntary retirement applications. The representation filed by the petitioner is said to have been rejected by the respondents. 3. Mr. Dilip Jerath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order forcibly retiring the petitioner as being illegal arbitrary and mala fide. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner who was forced to apply for voluntary retirement, had made a representation before coming into force of the order of voluntary retirement and, therefore, the respondents have committed serious illegality in not accepting the withdrawal application of the petitioner. Learned counsel further made out a case of discrimination as, according to him, various other similarly situated employees have been adjusted in different Mines and Plants of the Corporation. Learned counsel further made out a case of discrimination as, according to him, various other similarly situated employees have been adjusted in different Mines and Plants of the Corporation. Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of "Union of India and Anr. v. Wing Commandar T. Parthasarathy" (2001) 1 SCC-158, and in the case of "Krishnamber Jha, v. Union of India & Ors." (2000) 4 PLJR 100 . 4. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, firstly drawn my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and submitted that due to uneconomic operation and enviability a number of mines in Mosabani, i.e. Banalapa, Badia, Pathargora and Kendadin had been closed under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. With the closure of the establishments services of 3131 workmen stood terminated. These workmen were entitled to retrenchment compensation at the rate of 15 days wages for each completed years of service. However, they were given opportunity to opt for voluntary retirement. Simultaneously the Company also decided to abolish 45 posts of executives and issued a circular on 8.12.1999 informing all the employees that Mosabani Mines has since been closed and the Company is not in a position to provide alternative job. Accordingly the officers who were working in Mosabani Mines including other Mines were given opportunity to avail voluntary retirement under HCL (Voluntary Retirement) Scheme, 1999. The Officers who do not opt for voluntary retirement on or before 31st December. 1999 will be paid three months notice pay and their services shall stand terminated. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement which was accepted by the Corporation and he submitted all no due certificates and received all retirement benefits. The petitioner was released from the Companys Service with effect from 31.12.2000 and he received Rs. 18.13.299.66 paise. Learned counsel submitted that after receiving the aforesaid amount the petitioner filed representation for the withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement which was rightly rejected by the respondents. 5. Before deciding the issue first of all I would like to discuss the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India & Anr. 18.13.299.66 paise. Learned counsel submitted that after receiving the aforesaid amount the petitioner filed representation for the withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement which was rightly rejected by the respondents. 5. Before deciding the issue first of all I would like to discuss the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India & Anr. v. Wing Commandar T. Parthasarathy" (Supra) and the ratio decided by the Patna High Court in the case of "Krishnamber Jha v. Union of India & Ors." (Supra), heavily relied upon by the Petitioner. 6. In the "Union of India v. Wing Commandar T. Parthasarathy" case, the fact was that respondent who was a Wing Commandar in the Indian Air Force submitted an application on 21.7.1985 praying for premature retirement from service with effect from 31.8.1986. When the matter was under process before the authorities concerned, on 6.11.1985 respondent moved an amendment petition of his earlier application stating that actual date of his release could be decided taking into account the pensionary recommendation etc. which was expected to come in November, 1985. In view of this, the date of retirement sought with effect from 31.8.1986, according to the petitioner stood altered before any decision was taken or communicated. On 9.2.1986, respondent submitted application seeking to withdraw the application earlier submitted for premature retirement from service. However, he received communication intimating that he would prematurely retire from service at his own request with effect from 31.8.1986 and the request made for withdrawal of the application for premature retirement was not accepted on the ground that the headquarter did not accede to the request. Petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to quash the order of premature retirement with effect from 31.8.1986. The matter ultimately came to the Supreme Court. In this case, their lordship held:-- "Request for premature retirement which required acceptance of the competent or appropriate authority will not be completed till accepted by such competent authority and request could definitely be withdrawn before it became so complete. It is all the more so in case where request for premature retirement was made to take effect from a future date as in this case. 7. In the case of Krishnamber Jha v. Union of India, (supra), the fact was that the petitioner who was senior Supervisor Assistant applied for voluntary retirement on 19.6.1995. It is all the more so in case where request for premature retirement was made to take effect from a future date as in this case. 7. In the case of Krishnamber Jha v. Union of India, (supra), the fact was that the petitioner who was senior Supervisor Assistant applied for voluntary retirement on 19.6.1995. Before the said offer of the petitioner could be accepted, the petitioner sent subsequent letter dated 24.6.1995 for withdrawal of his previous letter dated 19.6.1995. The matter was kept pending with the authorities for sometime and the petitioner was allowed to continue in service. Ultimately, by the order dated 3.11.1995, the petitioner was ordered to be retired from service with effect from 15.11.1995. Thereafter, office order dated 15.11.1995 was issued releasing the petitioner and several other employees in terms of their initial prayer for voluntary retirement. In the light of the said fact, a Single Bench of the Patna High Court held :-- "This Court is in respectful agreement with the observation made by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, and it is difficult for this Court to accept the plea raised by the respondent. This Court is of the opinion that in the instant case by accepting the amount of voluntary retirement which was offered to him after filing of this writ petition the petitioner has not given up his right to challenge the impugned order. In fact, during the pendency of this writ petition a learned Judge of this Court while admitting the same gave further liberty to the petitioner to receive the balance amount and made it clear that filing of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner to receive the balance amount of provident fund and any other amount." 8. In the instant case, as noticed above, the petitioner filed an application for voluntary retirement on 28.2.2000. The matter of voluntary retirement of the petitioner was processed by the authorities and the said request of voluntary retirement was accepted and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 29.5.2000. Only a few days before the communication of acceptance, the petitioner made an application dated 22.5.2000 for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement and the same was forwarded to the authorities on 24.5.2000. Only a few days before the communication of acceptance, the petitioner made an application dated 22.5.2000 for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement and the same was forwarded to the authorities on 24.5.2000. By the time, the application for withdrawal was forwarded to the authorities, the request for voluntary retirement of the petitioner was accepted by the authorities. It is worth to mention here that in the letter dated 29.5.2000 petitioner was informed that he will be relieved from service on 31.5.2000. Petitioner accordingly submitted no dues certificate on 31.5.2000 and after submission of the no dues certificate, petitioner was relieved from the companys service and he received a total sum of Rs. 18,13.299.99 paise. It is therefore clear that pursuant to the order of acceptance of the request of voluntary retirement, the petitioner submitted no dues certificate and received all the benefits on 31.5.2000 and thereafter he was relieved from service. In my opinion, therefore, decisions relied upon by the petitioner does not apply in the facts of the present case. Even after release of the petitioner from service, his withdrawal application was considered by the authorities and it was found that petitioner submitted application for voluntary retirement of his own violation and stood released from the service of the company on 31.5.2000 after receiving all the benefits and therefore question of his reinstatement in service docs not arise. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the respondents-authorities rejecting the application of the petitioner for withdrawal of his earlier application for voluntary retirement in view of subsequent conduct of the petitioner. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.