Delhi High Court
Gl Sharma vs Union Of India And Anr. on 16 March, 2018
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: March 16, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2512/2018
GL SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.G.M.Padma Priya, Mr.Rishabh
Sancheti and Mr.Anchit Bhandari,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rakesh Kumar, CGSC for R-1
Mr.Vikash Singh, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Puneet Taneja and Mr.Adarsh Kumar,
Advocates for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In the first round of litigation, Supreme Court vide order of 25th
April, 2017 (Annexure P-11) had given liberty to petitioner herein to put
forward his viewpoint before the concerned CMD within four weeks and
thereafter appropriate orders were to be passed by the concerned CMD on
petitioner's application seeking voluntary retirement under the NTPC
Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2004. Impugned order of 4th July, 2017
(Annexure P-1) clearly states that relaxation in grade service of more than
1.5 years is not permitted and since petitioner did not have the requisite
grade service, therefore, while denying further relaxation, petitioner's
application for voluntary retirement had been declined observing that any
further relaxation may lead to administrative difficulties for the
respondent-NTPC. It is also noted in the impugned order that petitioner
had resigned from service in June, 2006 when his petition was pending
before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
2. The challenge to impugned order by learned counsel for petitioner
is on the ground that Supreme Court had, vide order (Annexure P-11),
sought reconsideration of petitioner's case while taking into consideration
the relaxation granted to one Mrs.O.Savithri whose case for premature
retirement was considered under the NTPC Voluntary Retirement
Scheme-2003. It is pointed out by petitioner's counsel that as per letter of
14th July, 2017 (Annexure P-15), petitioner had sought information vide
e-mail of 7th June, 2017 regarding the maximum relaxation granted in
respect to grade service by respondent-NTPC in any of the Voluntary
Retirement Schemes and had also sought details of instances where
relaxation of three years or more in grade service has been granted. The
grievance of petitioner is that the aforesaid information sought was vital
for reconsideration of petitioner's case and since this information has not
been divulged, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
3. The precise submission of petitioner's counsel is that in case of
Ms.O.Savithri, relaxation of four years and eleven months was granted
and respondent-NTPC cannot have different parameters for the VRS
Scheme in the years 2003 and 2004. It is submitted on behalf of
petitioner that even if respondent-NTPC has not granted relaxation of
more than 1.5 years in the year 2004, still it would not justify relaxation
of more than four years granted to Ms.O.Savithri in the year 2003. It is
pointed out that relaxation of four years and one month is sought by
petitioner whereas relaxation in grade service of four years and eleven
months has been already granted to Ms.O.Savithri. It is also the
grievance of petitioner that in the year 2002, relaxation of grade service
of two years and four months has been granted to one S.C.Gupta.
4. It is the case of petitioner that he had sought relaxation in the grade
service on account of his ill health and since the voluntary retirement was
not granted to him, therefore, he had to resign. So, it is submitted that the
impugned order deserves to be set aside and petitioner's application for
grant of voluntary retirement ought to be accepted. On the contrary,
learned senior counsel for respondent-NTPC supports the impugned order
and relies upon Supreme Court's decision in Board of Trustees,
Vishakhapatnam Port Trust & Ors. Vs. T.S.N.Raju & Anr. (2006) 7 SCC
664 to submit that as a matter of right, voluntary retirement cannot be
sought and it is the discretion of the concerned authority to grant
voluntary retirement while considering the administrative exigencies. It
is the case of respondent-NTPC that in the year 2004, the relaxation of
1.5 years in grade service has been uniformly granted and so this petition
deserves dismissal.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order (Annexure P-1),
the material on record and the decision cited, I find that Supreme Court in
its order of 25th April, 2017 (Annexure P-11) has taken note of the fact
that relaxation in grade service has been given to one Ms.O.Savithri who
had sought voluntary retirement under NTPC Voluntary Retirement
Scheme-2003 and the petitioner was granted liberty to put his case before
respondent-NTPC within a time frame. Impugned order reconsiders
petitioner's case for grant of voluntary retirement while simply noticing
that Ms.O.Savithri was permitted to voluntary retire after giving
relaxation under the NTPC Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2003. It is
simply recorded in the impugned order that petitioner had also sought
voluntary retirement under the NTPC Voluntary Retirement Scheme-
2003 and upon being denied voluntary retirement, had approached High
Court of Gujarat which had rejected his petition and petitioner had not
challenged it further.
6. It is true that one cannot claim voluntary retirement as a matter of
right but similarly placed employees cannot be discriminated while
permitting voluntary retirement. Though it is the discretion of respondent
to grant or refuse voluntary retirement but the discretion cannot be
arbitrarily exercised. There has to be judicious exercise of discretion to
allay the allegation of discrimination. Aforesaid is an integral part of
principles of natural justice which are sacrosanct.
7. To say the least, what was required to be clarified in the impugned
order was as to why relaxation of more than four years cannot be granted
to petitioner when it has been granted to Ms.O.Savithri. It would not be
prudent to deny voluntary retirement to petitioner on the specious plea
that relaxation in grade service was granted to Ms.O.Savithri under the
Voluntary Retirement Scheme of year 2003. Respondent was required to
explain as to why petitioner's case cannot be treated at par with the case
of Ms.O.Savithri. In normal course, petitioner could have claimed parity
with employees who have been permitted voluntary retirement under the
scheme in question i.e. under NTPC Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2004
but since Supreme Court in its order of 25th April, 2017 has taken note of
the fact that relaxation in grade service was granted to Ms.O.Savithri
which was of four years and eleven months, therefore, respondent is
required to explain as to why petitioner cannot claim parity with
Ms.O.Savithri. It is so required to be done because it has not been clearly
explained in the impugned order that denial of voluntary retirement to
petitioner was by way of an administrative exigency and what was the
said administrative exigency. A reasoned order on the aforesaid vital
aspect can effectively rebut the allegation of discrimination leveled
against respondent-NTPC.
8. In view of the aforesaid, respondent-NTPC is required to
reconsider impugned order of 4th July, 2017 within a period of six weeks
and to pass a fresh order while effectively repelling allegation of
discrimination by considering the case of petitioner vis-à-vis the case of
Ms.O.Savithri and outcome of reconsideration be made known to
petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the
remedy as available in law, if need be.
9. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 16, 2018
mamta
