Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1519 (BOM)

Chandrakant Vishram Chavan v. Union of India

2008-10-17

A.P.DESHPANDE, N.A.BRITTO

body2008
Judgment A. P. DESHPANDE,J.:- By this petition, the petitioner is seeking benefit under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme declared pursuant to a memorandum dated 26/08/1 977. Few facts that are necessary to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner are narrated herein below. 2. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Trade Apprentice with the respondent no.4. According to the petitioner, the training period was of four years which the petitioner successfully completed. After completion of the training period, the petitioner joined the regular service with the respondents w.e.f. 20/03/1963 as Plater Grade II. The respondents declared a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 1977. Pursuant to the scheme of voluntary retirement the petitioner made an application seeking voluntary retirement. In the said scheme one of the conditions stipulated for eligibility to claim voluntary retirement was that the Government servants who have completed 20 years of qualifying service alone would be entitled to claim voluntary retirement. The application moved by the petitioner seeking benefit of voluntary retirement came to be turned down by assigning the reason that as the petitioner has not completed the qualifying service necessary to make him eligible to claim voluntary retirement benefit, he cannot be extended the benefit of voluntary retirement. The Communication dated 17/02/1979 refusing voluntary retirement to the petitioner further reveals that the petitioner's Trade Apprenticeship period was not counted, as the period spent by the petitioner while undergoing the training, was not regular service rendered, more so, in a sanctioned post. Immediately on receipt of the letter dated 17/02/1979 refusing to grant the benefit of voluntary retirement, the petitioner shot back his reply by communication dated 19/02/1979, in the first place stating therein that the petitioner's four years of apprenticeship ought to have been counted for the purpose of qualifying service and, secondly, the petitioner unequivocally declared that he has no alternative but to resign from service. A further prayer in that direction was to the effect that the communication dated 19/02/1979 be treated as a letter of resignation and the petitioner be relieved from service w.e.f. 1/04/ 1979. It is undisputed that the petitioner joined the service under Goa Shipyard Corporation w.e.f. 12/03/1959 i.e. even before severance of relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent. It is undisputed that the petitioner joined the service under Goa Shipyard Corporation w.e.f. 12/03/1959 i.e. even before severance of relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent. Be as it may, the petitioner claims to have moved the higher authorities in regard to his claim for benefit under the voluntary retirement scheme, but the same was not favourably considered by any of the authorities. 3. Strangely, enough after a lapse of about 25 years from the accrual of cause of action i.e. refusal to permit the petitioner to avail the benefit under the voluntary retirement scheme, this petition came to be filed. There is hardly any explanation in the body of the petition about the delay and latches except that the petitioner had represented to the superior authorities. It is reiterated that the petition suffers from delay and latches over a period of 25 years. The learned Counsel for the respondent points out that as 'Rule' was issued in the petition without any notice to the respondent, they could not at any point of time earlier raise the objection as to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of delay and latches and thus press the said ground at this stage. The question that arise for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is eligible to claim the benefit under the scheme for voluntary retirement dated 26/08/1977. With a view to find out the eligibility, we need to know what is the meaning of 'qualifying service' as is referred to in paragraph 2 of the scheme. 4. It is undisputed that the petitioner is a civil servant. The relevant rules which regulate the service condition of the petitioner are neither placed on record nor pointed out to us, despite request to make the same available. Another crucial document which could throw some light on the nature of appointment or the status of the petitioner as Trade Apprentice would be an order appointing the petitioner as Trade Apprentice. The said order has not been placed on record. This document viz. letter/ order of appointment as Trade Apprentice could throw some light on the petitioner's status during the period of apprenticeship. We are constrained to observe that the petitioner seems to have deliberately withheld the document from the Court. The said order has not been placed on record. This document viz. letter/ order of appointment as Trade Apprentice could throw some light on the petitioner's status during the period of apprenticeship. We are constrained to observe that the petitioner seems to have deliberately withheld the document from the Court. During the course of argument, we had asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner to seek instructions from the petitioner, who is present in the Court and produce the order of appointment as Trade Apprentice. Despite the said request the document has not been made available to the Court. Thus, there is nothing on record to indicate the nature of apprenticeship/service put in by the petitioner during the training period from the year 1959 to 1963. In the absence of relevant material and data, so also the appointment order and the relevant service rules, we are unable to record a finding in favour of the petitioner, that the petitioner had rendered 20 years of qualifying service, which could grant the petitioner eligibility to seek voluntary retirement under the scheme dated 26/08/1977. Thus there being no merit, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. For the reasons set out herein above, coupled with the fact that the grievance in the instant petition has been made belatedly after a period of about 25 years, we are constrained to dismiss the petition. Petition stands dismissed with no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.