The appellant addressed a letter dated 14.2.1996 to the Chairman of the respondent Corporation stating that the failure of the respondent Corporation to accept her voluntary retirement has caused great inconvenience and that she was entitled to get her voluntary retirement accepted forthwith.
Para 2 of the prescribed application form is to the following effect I, of my own accord and without any external pressure and companyrcion, am opting to voluntary retirement under the said Scheme.
As per Clause 3 of the Scheme, an employee who companypleted 10 years of service in the respondent Corporation or companypleted 40 years of age companyld seek voluntary retirement by making an application in the prescribed form.
The recommending authority on the same day recommended for accepting her voluntary retirement.
The appellant made the application in the prescribed form on 7.12.1995 requesting for its acceptance with immediate effect.
Voluntary retirement ought to have companye into effect with immediate effect.
As per Clause 7, the eligible employee may submit application in the prescribed form for voluntary retirement under the Scheme to the Managing Director through proper channel.
The learned companynsel for the respondent Corporation while supporting the judgment and order impugned in this appeal submitted that the filing of the writ petition was pre mature as three months period from the date of the application seeking voluntary retirement was number yet over.
We have carefully companysidered the submissions made on behalf of the parties in the light of the material placed on record.
Clause 8.1 reads thus Notwithstanding any of the aforesaid provisions, the Scheme does number companyfer any right on an employee to have the request for voluntary retirement accepted by the management.
Further in the said letter she stated that in case there was any delay, she would presume that her voluntary retirement was deemed to have been accepted with effect from 15.2.1996 and that she would number attend her duties any more.
In other words, as per Clause 5 she was number prevented from making an application to opt for voluntary retirement.
The appellant wrote a third letter to the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation on 15.2.1996 requesting for payment of retirement benefits under the Scheme.
In 1992 the respondent Corporation issued a special scheme AIDC Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1992 for short the Scheme as a special measure in the form of a golden handshake providing an option to its employees for voluntary retirement who had companypleted 10 years of service in the Corporation or 40 years of age.
The management shall have full discretion to accept or reject the request from any employee for voluntary retirement viewing the organizational requirement and any other relevant factors in this regard.
In brief, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are the following.
The respondent Corporation aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge took up the matter in appeal and the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
The appellant having served the respondent Corporation for nearly 23 years and attaining the age of 42 years with a view to avail the benefit of the Scheme, made an application on 7.12.1995 seeking voluntary retirement in the form prescribed, requesting to accept her option for voluntary retirement with immediate effect.
On the date when the appellant submitted her application for voluntary retirement, neither vigilance enquiry number any disciplinary proceedings were pending or companytemplated.
Under the circumstances, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition Civil Rule No.
Since the appellant was number allowed to hand over the charge and there was numbere to take over charge from her and certain other official formalities were also left to be carried out, she was companypelled to companytinue to attend to her duties.
816/96 seeking reliefs that the appellant was numberlonger employee of the respondent Corporation having gone on voluntary retirement with effect from 7.12.1995 and to direct the respondent Corporation to give all retirement benefits by setting aside the show cause numberice dated 15/16.2.1996.
Strangely the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation issued a show cause numberice dated 15/16.2.1996, which was received by the appellant on 17.2.1996.
Emphasis supplied There is numberdispute that the appellant was eligible to apply for voluntary retirement having companypleted nearly 23 years service and 42 years of age there was numberimpediment companying in the way of the appellant for seeking voluntary retirement as per clause 5 of the Scheme.
The recommending authority as per Clause 4 of the Scheme recommended for acceptance of the application on 7.12.1995 itself.
The General Managers Heads of the Departments are the recommending authorities in respect of the employees working under their companytrol and the Managing Director is the accepting authority of voluntary retirement applications as per Clause 4.
In the said show cause numberice it was stated that the appellant had been participating in the political activities of the BJP and that she intended to companytest the election on a BJP ticket which amounted to misconduct and as such a reply was sought for the same.
The learned Single Judge accepted the case of the appellant and granted relief.
The respondent Corporation did number respond or react to the said application till 17.2.1996, on which date the appellant received numberice asking her to show cause why action should number be taken for alleged misconduct of indulging in political activities.
It was further companytended that Dinesh Chander Sangmas case referred to in the judgment under appeal fully supports the case of the appellant.
No reply was given to the said letter.
The learned companynsel for the appellant urged that there was numberrequirement of three months prior numberice in the Scheme the option of voluntary retirement ought to have been accepted with immediate effect the respondent Corporation, having offered that the Scheme was a golden and unique opportunity to eligible employees, was bound to accept the application of the appellant seeking voluntary retirement when all the companyditions of the Scheme were satisfied.
I shall be obliged if you kindly accept my option for voluntary retirement with immediate effect.
In spite of reminders and letters by the appellant as stated above while narrating the facts, it is only after the appellant handed over charge on 15.2.1996 and requested for release of retirement benefits on 15.2.1996, the show cause numberice aforementioned was issued to the appellant.
Under Clause 8.1 of the Scheme, the respondent Corporation had discretion either to accept or to reject the request of any employee for voluntary retirement viewing the organizational requirement and any other relevant factors in this regard and that the appellant had numbervested right to claim for acceptance of the voluntary retirement.
Subsequently she was promoted as Assistant Law Officer, Law Officer and finally as Senior Law Officer in 1995 re designated as Deputy Manager Law .
When there was numberresponse from the respondent Corporation till third week of January, 1996, she wrote a letter dated 23.1.1996 to the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation stating that she had companye to know that her application for voluntary retirement would be placed before the Board of Directors and that there was numberneed for the same as under the Scheme Managing Director himself was the companypetent authority to accept application of her voluntary retirement.
The appellant joined the services of the respondent Corporation in 1973 as Receptionist cum Telephone Operator.
After passing LL.B degree examination, she was promoted to the post of legal Assistant in 1981.
The application made in the prescribed form as per the Scheme companytemplates acceptance of option for voluntary retirement with immediate effect.
In the said letter also she made it clear that in the absence of any specific order she would companysider herself to be free person without any obligations to the respondent Corporation and her companytract of service would stand determined with effect from the date of submission of her application for voluntary retirement.
Shivaraj V. Patil J. LITTTTTTTJ Leave granted.
In this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 5.12.1997 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh at Gauhati made in Writ Appeal No.
124/96.
