Md. Irshad Ahmad vs Union Of India & Anr
2010 Latest Caselaw 5409 Del

*     HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                    Judgment delivered on: November 29, 2010


+                  W.P.(C) 11533/2009

Md. Irshad Ahmad                         ..... Petitioner
               Through : M.Hasibuddin, Adv.

                         -versus-

Union of India & Anr                      ..... Respondents
                 Through : Mr.Manoj Sharma, Adv.


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL


1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
      see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not? yes

3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? yes


Veena Birbal, J.

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has made the

following prayer:-

"Issue a writ/order/directions especially Mandamus thereby directing respondent no.1 and 2 to consider the request letter of voluntary retirement/voluntary separation scheme dated 9.12.2005 and reminder dated 3.3.2006 and 17.7.2006 as the petitioner official circular no.HPL/ESF/191 dated 3.6.2005, further direct the respondents to refund back the consequential benefits."

2. Briefly stated, the facts relating to the present petition are as

under:-

The petitioner had joined respondent no.2 as an Assistant

Executive Engineer (Civil) and after sometime was promoted as a

Senior Engineer in the year 1990. Thereafter, he was promoted as

a Deputy Manager and in the year 2006-2007 was redesignated as a

Manager. Petitioner had worked for about 23 years. During the

employment, the petitioner came to know about the office circular

no.HPL/ESF/191 dated 3.6.2005 wherein there was a provision that a

permanent employee could apply for the benefits of the Voluntary

Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to „VRS‟). The petitioner

applied for taking the benefit of the same vide an application dated

9th December, 2005. It is alleged that the petitioner was fully

covered by the aforesaid scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a

reminder dated 3rd March, 2006 but respondent no.2 did not

respond to his request. It is alleged that vide letter dated 17th July,

2006, the petitioner again filed a fresh application for availing the

benefits of VRS. It is alleged that when the petitioner did not get

any response from respondent no.2, he tendered resignation vide

letter dated 1st June, 2007 along with a cheque of ` 55,437/- in

favour of respondent no. 2 in lieu of three three months‟ notice

period. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 accepted the resignation of

the petitioner and relieved him vide an office order no.167/2007

dated 23.6.2007.

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.2 had

granted benefits of VRS to other employees whereas he has been

deprived of said benefit and as such respondent no.2 has

discriminated the petitioner. It is contended that due to his bad

health, the petitioner was forced to tender his resignation when his

request for VRS was not accepted, as such, respondent no.2 should

be directed to consider the petitioner‟s request for voluntary

retirement and to refund back the consequential benefits.

3. Respondent no.2 has filed a short counter affidavit wherein it

is stated that the petitioner had submitted his request for VRS on 9th

December, 2005. It is stated that the acceptance of VRS by the

respondent no. 2 is not a matter of right but depends upon its

discretion. Further, it is stated that at the time of his resignation,

the petitioner was working as a „Project Engineer‟ with designation

as an „Executive Engineer‟ and the said post falls in the Group „B‟

category. The VRS was in abeyance w.e.f. 6th September, 2006 as

per the guidelines of the Government of India for Group A and

Group B category as such no decision was taken on his request for

VRS. Therefore, without waiting for a final decision the petitioner

tendered his resignation of his own on 1st June, 2007. His

resignation thus ended the matter for VRS and as such, respondent

no.2 was under no obligation to consider it.

4. I have considered the submissions made.

It is an admitted position that the petitioner had applied for

VRS on 9th December, 2005. There are also letters on record dated

3rd March, 2006 as well as 17th July, 2006 by which the petitioner

had requested respondent no.2 to relieve him under VRS. During

arguments, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has referred to

DPE/Guidelines/VIII/1 under the heading of Voluntary Retirement

Scheme, specially clause 9 and clause 12. The same reads as

under:-

"9. VRS will be applicable to the permanent employees badly workers, work charged established and temporary workers but not to the casual workers. There will be no recruitment against vacancies arising due to VRS.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

12. In implementing the VRS scheme, management shall ensure that it is extended primarily to such employees whose services may be dispensed without detriment to the company. Care will be exercised to ensure that highly skilled and qualified workers and staff are not given the option. As there shall be no recruitment against vacancies arising due to VRS- it is important that the organization is not denuded of talent. The management of the PSUs shall introduce the VRS with the approval of their Boards and the administrative Ministries."

Clause 12 clearly stipulates that acceptance of VRS is a

discretion of the Management and it cannot be claimed as a matter

of right. The „post‟ on which the petitioner was working fell in Group

B Category and the benefit of VRS could not have been availed as a

matter of right as per Government of India guidelines as are

referred above. Further, the petitioner has not disputed the position

that VRS was kept in abeyance w.e.f 6th September, 2006 in respect

of Group A and B category including Project Engineers. In any

event, the petitioner had also tendered his resignation. In view of

the above reasoning given, respondent no.2 was justified in not

responding to application for VRS submitted by the petitioner.

Further the petitioner was informed in this regard by respondent

no.2 vide letter dated 24th September, 2007. It may also be

mentioned that the reasons given for not accepting VRS application

are not challenged in this petition. As regards allegation of

discrimination is concerned, petitioner has not given the name of

employees in the petition who as per him have been given the

benefit of VRS. Few names are given in letter dated 31st August,

2007 who as per him had been given benefit of VRS by respondent

no.2, however, the petitioner has not given their designation nor it

is his stand that the said employers were falling in Group „A‟ or „B‟

category. Even the dates of alleged acceptance of resignation have

also not been given whereas the stand of respondent no.2 is that

none of the Group A and B category employees including the

Project Engineers have been granted VRS. Nothing has been

placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate the alleged stand

of discrimination. Further, the petitioner of his own will had

tendered his resignation. It is also an admitted position that after

resigning, the petitioner has taken up a job in the Gulf. Even the

present petition is filed through his attorney i.e. wife. The petitioner

for better prospects had tendered the resignation. There is nothing

on record to show that the petitioner was compelled to resign due to

non acceptance of his request for VRS as is alleged by him. There is

also a delay of three years in filing the present petition. As per

petitioner, VRS was opted on 17.7.2006 whereas present petition is

filed in September, 2009. The delay has also not been explained in

any manner.

In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

November 29, 2010 ssb