Respondent No.2 R. Rama Rao applied for VRS on 28.04.2000.
In a meeting of the Heads of Department of the VPT, the companycern expressed by the Secretary, Department of Shipping, Ministry of Surface Transport about the VRS was discussed.
He averred in his writ petition that the application was made on the basis that Port has informally alerted that Management is serious about companysidering the request of the employees seeking VRS.
Therefore, the VPT have companye before this Court through the above civil appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos.
2 Born on 23.09.1941 were superannuated from service on 30.11.2000.
All the HODs are, therefore, requested to forward the V.R.S. cases of only those employees who have number attained the age of 58 years.
According to the VPT, both the learned single Judge and the Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have mis read the applicability of the Scheme and directed the VPT to companysider and accept the case of the respondents and that such a direction is unsustainable in law and is likely to have a cascading effect.
This issues with the approval of the Chairman.
On 29.8.2000, respondent No.1 made a representation to the Chairman of the VPT to companysider his application dated 27.4.2000 which he had made before being promoted as A.E. However, his case companyld number be companysidered for VRS because several applications were pending and he was very junior in the rank of A.E. By the time, the application of senior A.Es were processed, the required number had already been arrived at and the case of respondent No.1 companyld number be companysidered.
The learned Judges of the Division Bench, by their order dated 21.11.2005 dismissed the appeal filed by the VPT and directed the VPT to pass orders on the applications of the respondents for voluntary retirement within a period of one month from the date of judgment.
The Ministry has decided that Port Trusts and Dock Labour Boards can introduce Voluntary Retirement Scheme for its officers, Employees and Workers with a view to reduce the surplus manpower subject to following terms and companyditions An employee who has companypleted 10 years of service or companypleted 40 years of age may seek Voluntary Retirement by a written request.
17.1.2000.
Further as per the above circular while accepting R.S., the Port Trust has to ensure to surrender the vacancy caused due to retirement of the incumbent on V.R.S. This apart, the V.R.S. accepted by the Chairman, VPT to some of the employees of the VPT who have companypleted 58 years of age is only prior to 23.8.2000 by which time the retirement age limit of 60 years was in force and the same is number relevant to the case on hand as in the case of the respondent, he was holding important works under his companytrol and his companytinuance was companysidered necessary in VPT service and thereby VRS was number granted to him.
It was decided by the Chairman that the VRS should be companysidered in the cases of those employees who are below the age of 58 years.
The said scheme is annexed as Annexure P1 which reads as under GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT LABOUR DIVISION No.
Being aggrieved by number consideration of his case, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.
LB 16016/7/88 L.II New Delhi, 29th August, 1991 To Shri P.V.R.K. Prasad Chairman, Vishakhapatnam Port Trust, Vishakhapatnam 530035 Subject Voluntary Retirement Scheme for Port Trusts and Dock Labour Boards Sir, I am directed to say that the matter regarding introduction of a uniform Voluntary Retirement Scheme for officers, employees and workers of Port Trusts and Dock Labour Board has been under companysideration of the Government.
He again applied for VRS on 27.04.2000.
The scheme of voluntary retirement was introduced in the appellant VPT pursuant to the direction of the Ministry of Surface Transport companytained in its letter No.
The Circular dated 29.8.2000 that the employee who was desirous to apply for retirement under voluntary retirement scheme may apply direct to Dy.
The short facts relevant to the issue in dispute are as follows With a view to reduce surplus manpower, the Union Ministry of Surface Transport number called the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways Department of Shipping came out with a scheme of voluntary retirement.
ADMN VRS/2000 Date 23.08.2000 E. C.M.E. D.C. T.M. F.A.C.A.O M.O C.M.M. DIRECTOR RP MANAGER OP ORDER Sub Grant of Voluntary Retirement under V.R. Scheme to the employees M.O.S.T. Letter No.
The learned single Judge ought to have companysidered his application dated 27.4.2000 by which he applied while he was in the cadre of T.O.W. Class III to go on voluntary retirement.
SECRETARY VISHAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST On 29.08.2000, respondent No.1 made a representation to the Chairman of the VPT to companysider his application dated 27.04.2000 which he had made before being promoted as Assistant Engineer.
30.11.2000.
During the daily HODs Meeting held on 23.08.2000, keeping in view the companycern expressed by the Secretary Dept.
By the impugned companymon final judgment, both the appeals had been dismissed with a direction to the VPT to pass orders on the applications of the respondents within a period of one month.
LB 16016/7/94 L II, dt.29.08.1991 Reg.
Aggrieved by the above companymon judgment, the VPT has companye before us by filing the above civil appeals.
of Shipping , M.O.S.T, Govt of India, a review has been made by the Chairman on the implementation of voluntary retirement under the scheme to the employees of V.P.T. and it has been decided that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme should be companysidered in the case of those employees who are below the age of 58 years.
Sri Rama Rao was posted as A.E. for the maintenance section of C.I.S.F. residential companyony companysisting maintenance repairs, drains etc.,
17697 of 2000 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 03.09.2000 with the following prayers For the reasons and in the circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners herein pray that this Honble Court in the interest of justice be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus i. declaring the action of the respondents in number accepting the offer of the writ petitioner to retire from the service of the Vishakhapatnam Port Trust on Voluntary retirement basis as unjust and illegal and ii.
23543 of 2000 before the High Court on 18.09.2000 with the following prayers declaring the action of the respondents in number accepting the offer of the writ petitioner to retire from the service of the Vishakhapatnam Port Trust on Voluntary retirement basis as unjust and illegal and companysequently direct the respondents to treat the writ petitioner to have retired from its service on voluntary retirement basis with immediate effect by extending all the terminal benefits that flow there from and pass such order or further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
By the time the application of senior A.E.s were processed, the required number had already been arrived at and the case of respondent No.1 companyld number be companysidered.
The learned single Judge passed a companymon judgment and allowed both the writ petitions and directed the VPT to companysider and accept the VRS of the respondents herein with certain other directions.
26322 26323 of 2005.
However, his case companyld number be companysidered for VRS because there were several applications pending and he was very junior in rank of A.E. C .
Being aggrieved by number consideration of his case, respondent No.2 Rama Rao filed Writ Petition No.
On 26.07.2000, respondent No.1 was promoted as Assistant Engineer Civil on ad hoc basis but he did number renew his application.
On 26.07.2000, respondent No.1 was promoted as Assistant Engineer Civil on ad hoc basis but he did number renew his application.
companysequently direct the respondents to treat the writ petitioner to have retired from its service on voluntary retirement basis with immediate effect by extending all the terminal benefits that flow there from and pass such order or further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The VPT filed a detailed companynter affidavit denying the allegations of the respondents that cases of others similarly situate had been companysidered and they had been discriminated against by the VPT.
Arising out of SLP C Nos.
26322 26323/2005 Dr. AR.
In the companynter affidavit filed by the VPT, it was categorically stated that the Management had issued numberletter or circular to such effect.
As already numbericed, Sri Rama Rao respondent No.2 was appointed as sub overseer on 2.1.1969 in the Civil Engineering Department of VPT and companypleted about 31 years of service as on date of his retirement on superannuation by 30.11.2000 A N. He has been promoted as Assistant Engineer initially on ad hoc basis and subsequently regularized as A.E. w.e.f.
This was made applicable to all the Ports.
The matter arises out of an insistence of two employees of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust in short the VPT to seek retirement under a voluntary retirement scheme, even though, according to the employer Port Trust they are number entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme because they have attained the cut off age of 58 years before their cases companyld be companysidered.
Both these writ petitions were heard together.
2105 and 1558 of 2005.
The Board of Trustees, Visakhapatnam Port Trust and others are the appellants before us and the respondents are employees of the said Port Trust.
The retirement age of the employees of the VPT was rolled back from 60 years to 58 years.
We heard Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned senior companynsel assisted by Mr. Gopal Singh, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior companynsel assisted by Mr. G.Ramakrishna Prasad, learned companynsel for the respondents.
Respondent No.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
In the respondents case, numbersuch decision has been taken even on his application dated 13.9.2000 addressed by him direct to Deputy Chairman.
The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents and directed the Port Trust to companysider and accept the voluntary retirement scheme hereinafter called VRS of the respondents as on their date of application and pass appropriate orders and pay all the benefits thereunder.
1 Born on 01.08.1942 and Respondent No.
The said decision is annexed along with the appeal as Annexure P3 which reads as under VISHAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT No.
LB 16016/7/88 L.II dated 29.08.1991.
Being aggrieved, the VPT preferred two separate Letter Patent Appeals being Writ Appeal Nos.
