Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2951 (RAJ)

Suresh Chandra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2005-11-11

ASHOK PARIHAR

body2005
Judgment Ashok Parihar, J.-Petitioner submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement on 12.01.1998. It has also been mentioned in the application that the petitioner may be given the benefits under the Service Rules of the respondent-union or the Golden Handshake Scheme, as the case may be. Another application was submitted by the petitioner on 24.01.1998, stating therein that the application for voluntary retirement submitted on 12.01.1998 be accepted immediately and whatever benefits are given under the Rules of the Union may be given to him. Yet another notice for demand of justice was given by Counsel for the petitioner on 06.02.1998 stating therein that in view of letter of intent issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), the voluntary retirement/ resignation of the petitioner be accepted before 09.02.1998 as the acceptance letter has to be submitted before the BPCL on or before 10.02.1998. The above notice for demand of justice was withdrawn by the petitioner on the same day with a request that as per assurance he will be voluntarily retired from service before 10.02.1998. As has come on record, since meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent union could not be convened because of Parliamentary elections necessary clarification was sought by the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent union from the State Government in regard to accepting the voluntary retirement application of the petitioner. The clarification was issued on 07.02.1998 giving liberty to the respondent-union to take necessary resolution by circulation on the members of the Board of Directors. The resolution came for circulation before the Board of Directors on 7th and 8th of February, 1998 mentioning therein that in view of urgency shown by the petitioner on the ground of getting petrol pump dealership from BPCL the petitioner may be voluntarily retired from service before 10.02.1998. Accordingly, the petitioner was voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 09.02.1998 vide order dated 09.02.1998. Necessary retiral benefits have also been paid accordingly. There is also no dispute that after receiving the order dated 09.02.1998, petitioner received petrol pump dealership from the BPCL. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner was voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 09.02.1998 vide order dated 09.02.1998. Necessary retiral benefits have also been paid accordingly. There is also no dispute that after receiving the order dated 09.02.1998, petitioner received petrol pump dealership from the BPCL. 2. After receiving the entire retiral benefits as per request made by the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed on 210.2002 mainly with the following prayers: - “(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents may kindly be directed to make the pay fixation of the petitioner in the Revised Pay-scales Rules, 1998 and further the respondents be directed to pay retiral benefits to petitioner including difference of gratuity, salary since 01.09.1996 till retirement of petitioner i.e., 09.02.1998 accordingly alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum. (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the retiral benefits to petitioner of Golden Handshake Scheme alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum.” 3. Mr. Pareek, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that dealership of petrol pump to the petitioner by the BPCL is of no relevance to get the benefits under the Golden Handshake Scheme. He then tried to contend that the order dated 09.02.1998 could only be passed under the Golden Handshake Scheme, otherwise, the petitioner could not have been voluntarily retired under the relevant rules. Alternatively, learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that at least petitioner should have been given the benefits of Revised Pay-scales Rules while calculating retiral benefits. 4. Mr. Mathur, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that application of the petitioner was never considered under the Golden Handshake Scheme. It was under great pressure and urgency shown by the petitioner that under exceptional circumstances the application for voluntary retirement was accepted so that petitioner could get the dealership. He has relied on various documents submitted alongwith the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. After having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone though the material on record. 6. There cannot be any dispute that Golden Handshake Scheme was accepted by the respondent union vide resolution dated 12.07.1995 and a notice was also issued accordingly on 29.08.1995. All employees intend to seek benefits of the Scheme were to give their option by 05.09.1995. 6. There cannot be any dispute that Golden Handshake Scheme was accepted by the respondent union vide resolution dated 12.07.1995 and a notice was also issued accordingly on 29.08.1995. All employees intend to seek benefits of the Scheme were to give their option by 05.09.1995. No such option, as contemplated, was given by the petitioner at the relevant time. It was only in the letter dated 12.01.1998 that there has been an alternative mention of benefits under the Golden Handshake Scheme. Bare reading of the subsequent correspondence would show that the petitioner never intended to take the benefits under the Golden Handshake Scheme and he continuously pressed for acceptance of his voluntary retirement application so as to enable him to get petrol pump dealership from the BPCL. The correspondence would further clearly reveal that the application was never considered by the Board or the concerning authorities under the Golden Handshake Scheme. Petitioner having received all the fruits consequence to the order dated 09.02.1998 without any protest or objection, now cannot be allowed to seek a different relief after more than four years, which further shows the intention of the petitioner that he only wanted voluntary retirement to get petrol pump dealership. 7. So far as benefit of Revised Pay-scales Rules is concerned, it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that same were made applicable on the employees of the respondent-union much after petitioner had already been retired from service. 8. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, the relief , as prayed, cannot be granted. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits.