Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 215 (MP)

Raj Kumar Singh v. State of M. P.

2007-02-21

A.K.GOHIL, RAJENDRA MENON

body2007
JUDGMENT Gohil, J. -- 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of all the above mentioned connected writ appeals as the common question is involved in all the appeals. 2. Appellants have filed the aforesaid writ appeals under section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the common orders dated 22.8.2006 & 3.11.2006 passed in WP (S) 815/06, WP (S) No. 4155/06, WP (S) No. 4160/06, WP No. 5006/ 05 (S), WP (S) No. 1426/06, WP (S) No. 1344/06, WP (S) No. 1604/06, WP (S) No. 2704/06, WP No. 4488/05(S), WP (S) No. 609/06, WP (S) no. 1974/06, WP (S) No. 1000/2006, WP(S) No. 1697/06, WP (S) No 1344/06, WP (S) No. 1426/06, WP (S) No. 2146/06, WP (S) No. 1504/06 & WP (S) No. 1656/06 and in all other connected petitions. 3. Appellants are the employees of the M.P. Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation). Respondent Corporation took a policy decision regarding the closer of the Corporation and also framed policy of giving voluntary rtirement to its employees. The appellants filed the writ petition for seeking the relief that a direction be given to provide the alternative employment in other Government department or undertakings or their absorption in the service of the State Government as has been done in some cases and there should not be any discrimination by the respondents in the matter of absorption or sending the employees on deputation. They also prayed for the relief that respondents be restrained from implementing the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2005. 4. The M.P. State Road Transport Corporation was incorporated on 1.1962 under the provision of M.P. State Road Transport Act, 1950. The Corporation framed rules and regulations with regard to the appointment of its employees. It was pleaded by the respondents that the Corporation has been running in heavy losses and was not in a position to pay the retiral dues of its employees within time. It was submitted that on 31st March 2004, total loss of the Corporation was 735 crores and the liability was of Rs. 1033.68 crores. The Corporation had to pay the retiral dues including the payment of LIC, which is near about Rs. 183.87 crores. Besides this, the Corporation has been running in continuous loss of Rs. 20 crores per month. It was submitted that on 31st March 2004, total loss of the Corporation was 735 crores and the liability was of Rs. 1033.68 crores. The Corporation had to pay the retiral dues including the payment of LIC, which is near about Rs. 183.87 crores. Besides this, the Corporation has been running in continuous loss of Rs. 20 crores per month. Looking to the aforesaid loss and various facts and circumstances of the case, the Corporation and the State Government have taken a decision to close the Corporation because it was found that it was not possible to restructure the Corporation and to run it on profit basis. Around 10,000 employees were working in the Corporation. Decision was taken by the Cabinet regarding closure of the Corporation and the Central Government vide letter dated 23rd March 2005 granted permission to the State Government to close the Corporation. The Corporation framed Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2005 (VRS 2005). As per the Scheme, the employees would be entitled to get to two months extra salary if they opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme except other emoluments. It was also decided that the employees will get amount which would be equal to the amount payable after his retirement of normal age of 58 years. It has also been decided that the no employee would get the amount above Rs. 5 lacs under the aforesaid scheme. 90% of the employees have opted the VRS and remaining employees did not apply for VRS and they have filed the petitions before this Court. Their contention is that Corporation has provided alternative employment to many employees and has also recommended the cases of some of the employees for their absorption in other departments. Therefore, it was alleged that Corporation has discrminated amongst the employees and they have a right for direction of alternative employment. 5. Respondents No.1 and 2 State has filed return and submitted that it is not possible for the State Government to absorb the appellants because excess employees are already working in the service of State Government. It was also their stand that the State Government is also facing heavy burden of salary of their employees huge in numbers to whom they have to pay huge amount of salary and the State Government is not in a position to take the services of these employees either on deputation or in the service of State Government. It was also their stand that the State Government is also facing heavy burden of salary of their employees huge in numbers to whom they have to pay huge amount of salary and the State Government is not in a position to take the services of these employees either on deputation or in the service of State Government. It was further submitted that the State Government has adopted various measures for reducing the expenditure and reducing the staff. 6. Respondent No.3 & 4 Corporation has filed its return/reply and submitted that the Corporation is running in heavy loss and is not in a position to manage and to restructure the same. Corporation has already granted VRS to 5000 employees. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme is not being implemented forcibly, employees have adopted it voluntarily. Section 3 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Sarvjanik Upakramo Ke Karmachariyon Ka Lok Seva Me Samviliyan Pratishedh (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2003 has imposed ban for absorption of those persons who have opted for Voluntary Retirement and who have submitted their consent. Therefore, employees are estopped from raising such a plea. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2005 has been framed exercising powers under section 38 (1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Therefore, there is no scope for challenging the same. 7. On 8.11.2006, in writ appeals while hearing the matter for interim relief it was vehemently argued on behalf of the employees that the Corporation is discriminating among the employees. Some of the employees have been absorbed and some of the employees have been sent on deputation in the Government department where they are being absorbed. Therefore, this Court directed to the Managing Director to file his own affidavit that none of the employees of the Corporation have been absorbed in any of the department nor any of the employees have been sent on deputation, and if they have been absorbed or they have sent on deputation, then why they are discriminating with other employees and whether the Corporation has been closed and from which date. In compliance of this Court order. Managing Director of the MPRTC Shri Mukesh Kumar Warshneya has filed his own affidavit on 19.11.2006 in which he has denied the allegation and submitted that Corporation has given only no objection certificate to the employees for whom it was asked for deputation. The Corporation is not involved in any other process. In compliance of this Court order. Managing Director of the MPRTC Shri Mukesh Kumar Warshneya has filed his own affidavit on 19.11.2006 in which he has denied the allegation and submitted that Corporation has given only no objection certificate to the employees for whom it was asked for deputation. The Corporation is not involved in any other process. No Objection Certificate is also conditional and it is valid only up to acceptance of voluntary retirement or upto winding up of M.P. Road Transport Corporation. No Objection Certificate is only has been given by the Corporation and the application for deputation was directly given to that department where these employees have been taken on deputation. The Corporation has not passed any order with regard to absorption of any employee in any other department and they have not discriminated amongst the employees. The Managing Director has also stated that those persons who are on deputation, if they have applied for voluntary retirement, despite being on deputation to those persons VRS, will be granted and those persons who have not applied for VRS, to those also by process of retrenchment, cases will be settled as per availability of funds, VRS. will be granted in phased manner. Counsel for the Corporation present in Court submits that Corporation has also no objection to give NOC to all the appellants employees, those who want to go on deputation, if the concerned department asks for the same and if willing to take them in service, the Corporation has no objection, but Corporation is not sending the employees on deputation in other department. The Corporation has not passed any order with regard to absorption of any employees in any other department. It was also submitted that at present no target date has been fixed for winding up of Corporation. 8. Learned Writ Court after considering the various decisions cited before him and considering the heavy losses of the Corporation dismissed the petition holding therein that the proper care has been taken by the Government and Corporation with regard to interest of the employees. The employees have also been permitted to file application for VRS and the Court has also granted permission that they are also free to withdraw their VRS applications, if they have applied and they can approach to the Court under the provisions of MPIR Act. 9. The employees have also been permitted to file application for VRS and the Court has also granted permission that they are also free to withdraw their VRS applications, if they have applied and they can approach to the Court under the provisions of MPIR Act. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that most of the employees have accepted the VRS scheme of 2005. The appellants employees have also accepted it but still they are also having the liberty to accept or not to accept the same. So far as the question of discrimination by the Corporation about sending some of the employees on deputation is concerned, the Managing Director of the Corporation has filed Annexure A in support of his affidavit, in which names of the 14 employees have been mentioned, out of which 9 employees had directly applied for deputation to other departments of the State Government and on the basis of no objection certificate issued by the respondent Corporation they have been relieved to the department. Four employees had applied as per the advertisement and they are working on the basis of their selection. It was vehemently argued that the State Government has absorbed one candidate Smt. Mamta Gupta, but she has not been absorbed in the service of the State Government. As per the Annexure A she has been absorbed in the Professional Examination Board, which is an independent body. Therefore on the basis of one isolated case it cannot be held that Corporation has discriminated between the employees in sending them on deputation. During the course of hearing, Shri Prashant Sharma submitted that the Corporation still has no objection to issue No objection certificate in favour of the employees, those who want to go on deputation to the other department on the condition that if the department will accept them on deputation. If the Government is willing to absorb the employees on vacant post, the Corporation also will not have any objection for the same, but from the submission made by the Government Advocate, the Government is reluctant to take the employees on deputation as the Government is already over burdened and is not in short of hands. If the Government is willing to absorb the employees on vacant post, the Corporation also will not have any objection for the same, but from the submission made by the Government Advocate, the Government is reluctant to take the employees on deputation as the Government is already over burdened and is not in short of hands. It was not the case of the appellants before the writ Court that there is any defect in the policy of VRS of 2005 or the scheme has not protected the interest of the employees. From the aforesaid situation, it is clear that in view of the acceptance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme of2005, no direction can be given in favour of the appellants employees for any alternative employment. It is for the Government to take a policy decision in the matter of absorption of the employees in any Government department or in any other Government Corporation. So far as the case of deputation is concerned, an employee of the Corporation can only be sent on deputation when the department in which the post of deputation is available is willing to take the employees on deputation. Learned counsel for the respondent has clearly admitted before us that the Corporation has no objection in sending the petitioner employees on deputation if their services are required by any of the Government department or the Government Corporation and respondent Corporation is always willing to issue no objection certificate in favour of the employees in this regard. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and under the facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the parties at this stage have no objection for the disposal of all the above mentioned writ appeals with the following direction that: (i) Appellants are free to accept the Voluntary Retirement Scheme under the VRS Scheme of 2005. (ii) If any Government department or its instrumentality is willing to take the appellants or any employee of the corporation on deputation, the Corporation will issue no objection certificate in their favour, as have been done in the cases of other employees. (ii) If any Government department or its instrumentality is willing to take the appellants or any employee of the corporation on deputation, the Corporation will issue no objection certificate in their favour, as have been done in the cases of other employees. (iii) So far as the question of absorption in the Government department is concerned, on advertisement on any vacant post by the Government or by any instrumentalities of the Government, the appellants employees shall be free to apply for the post if eligible and if they are selected on merits, the Corporation shall have no objection for their engagement on the aforesaid post and the acceptance of VRS 2005 will not come in their way and it will not be treated as any kind of disqualification. (iv) Even after the acceptance of VRS, 2005, in case the Corporation is revived or is not closed finally, the appellant shall have the right to seek employment in the Corporation on preferential basis. 11. With the aforesaid directions, all the aforesaid writ appeal are disposed of finally.