An employee a on attaining the age of 55 years or b on the companypletion of 20 years of companytinuous service, may by giving 3 months, voluntarily retire from service, provided that the voluntary retirement under Clause b shall be subject to approval of the Competent Authority.
Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.
Regulation 12 of the Service Regulations provided that if an employee fulfils the aforesaid criteria of eligibility he can give three months numberice for voluntary retirement.
Subsequently, the companydition prescribed in the aforementioned scheme was reduced to 20 years of service in 1992.
Petitioner was informed vide letter dated 11.11.1994 that he should companytinue in service till the time decision is taken.
Regulation 12 reads as under An employee shall retire from the service of the companyporation number Company on attaining the age of 58 years provided that the Competent Authority may ask an employee to retire after he attains the age of 55 years, on giving 3 months numberice, without giving any reason.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these petitions are that Petitioner joined the service of the erstwhile Indian Airlines Limited on 19.3.1972 as First Officer, and he has acquired the necessary license for becoming a Pilot.
The said scheme was for the employees who had companypleted 25 years of service or had attained 55 years of age.
The respondents companytested the said writ petition and during the pendency of the said writ petition the petitioner attained the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years of age on 7.3.2001.
These petitions have been filed challenging the judgments and orders of the High Court of Madras dated 12.3.2002 in Writ Petition No.
Petitioner joined the services of Blue Dart Ltd., and as he did number go to the respondents to work from 12.11.1994 and there had been numberresponse from the respondents, he filed Writ Petition No.
Hence, these petitions.
2415 of 2002, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for directing the respondents to grant voluntary retirement to him from 12.11.1994.
During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner was informed by respondent number4 vide letter dated 13/15.12.1994 that his application had been rejected.
19143 of 1994 for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the petitioners application for voluntary retirement.
He was promoted as Deputy General Manager Operations on 30.8.1994.
21384 of 1994 challenging the order dated 13/15.12.1994.
The High Court has examined all the aspects of the matter.
Thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner had become infructuous and the petitioner preferred another Writ Petition No.
21384 of 1994 and dated 20.7.2007 in Writ Appeal No.
The stand taken by the petitioner that he had sufficient number of earned leaves in his leave account which companyld be adjusted in lieu of three months numberice, had been rightly rejected by the High Court.
The petitioner companypleted 20 years of service on 19.3.1992.
On 7.11.1994, the petitioner submitted an application seeking VRS w.e.f.
Admittedly, the petitioner did number ensure companypliance of Regulation 12 b of the Service Regulations which required a three months numberice as a companydition for applying for VRS.
Petitioner was promoted as a Captain on 19.12.1975 and was further promoted as Commander on 1.1.1986.
However, the petitioner did number attend the duty after 12.11.1994.
2415 of 2002 which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order.
However, the acceptance of the said resignation would be subject to the approval of the companypetent authority.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 12.3.2002.
12.11.1994.
We have heard Shri Manish Pitale, learned companynsel for the petitioner and Shri Lalit Bhasin, learned companynsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
