Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1041 (MP)

K. K. Chaturvedi v. M. P. S. R. T. C.

2003-09-01

RAJENDRA MENON

body2003
JUDGMENT It is the case of the petitioner that under the scheme for Voluntary Retirement as circulated by the respondents vide annexure P-1 dated 19.1.2000, petitioner also submitted his application. However, as a departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner, his application for retirement was not considered and he was removed from service vide Annexure P-4 dated 18.9.2000. Petitioner claims discrimination inasmuch as in the case of one Ram Swaroop Dubey, even though a departmental enquiry was pending against him in carrying 25 persons without ticket during the pendency of departmental enquiry, his application for retirement was considered and he was permitted to Voluntary Retirement by closing the departmental proceeding vide Annexure P-5 dated 10.1.2002. Similarly in the case of another employee namely one Balram Sharma, Conductor also a departmental enquiry with regard to carrying 15 persons without ticket was dropped and the Voluntary Retirement was accepted vide Annexure P-6 dated 16.1.2002. It is therefore, submitted by the petitioner that in the case of the petitioner even though the allegation was absence from the place of duty. His application for V.R.S. was not considered and he was removed from service. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was also entitled in same treatment as was given to Ram Swaroop Dubey and Balaram Sharma. On notice being issued respondents have filed a return and it is stated by them that the petitioner's service having being terminated by Annexure P-4 dated 18.9.2000. It was also submitted that the case of Ram Swaroop Dubey and Balaram Sharma were different as they were Conductors and petitioner being a Security Guard, his case cannot be considered with these persons. I have heard learner counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, in the case of petitioner, his application for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was not considered and he was removed from service on the allegation of remaining absent from duty, whereas a perusal of Annexure P-5 and P-6 indicate that departmental proceedings pending against Ram Swaroop Dubey and Balaram Sharma were closed and they were permitted to voluntary retire from service. That being so, there seems to be some substance in the grievance of the petitioner. That being so, there seems to be some substance in the grievance of the petitioner. However, from records, it is seen that an appeal filed by the petitioner, Annexure P-7 is pending consideration before respondent No.1, wherein petitioner has made a prayer for withdrawal of his order of termination, Annexure P-4 and grant him benefit of the V.R.S. In that view of the matter, it is directed that respondent No. 1 shall consider the· representation filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure P-7 and while considering the same, the question of discrimination as alleged by the petitioner and mentioned hereinabove shall be taken and appeal be disposed of by a speaking order. It is expected that the said respondent shall take a speaking order in the matter within two months from the filing a certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.