Madhya Pradesh High Court
C.L.Onkar vs The Food Corpn. Of India on 16 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 16 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 16255 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
C.L.ONKAR S/O LATE MANGILAL ONKAR, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSTT.GRADE II, FOOD
CORPORATION OF INDIA, BETUL, R/O RASHTRIYA
VYAYAM SHALA-KE-PAS, SHASTRI WARD SADAR
BAZAR BETUL, DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KUNAL THAKRE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR CORATION HOUSE 16/12,
KHAMBA LINE, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, THROUGH
ITS ZONAL MANAGER D.W.ROAD, CHURCH GATE,
MUMBAI (DELHI)
3. THE FOOD CORP.OF INDIA, THR.ITS
SR.REGIONAL MANAGER M.P.NAGAR, CHETAK
BHAWAN, HABIBGANJ, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. THE FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA, THR. ITS DISTRICT
M A N A G E R M.P.NAGAR, CHETAK BHAWAN,
HABIBGANJ BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not
permitting petitioner to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement.
2. Petitioner's contention is that vide application dated 27/09/2004
(Annexure-P/2) petitioner had applied for the voluntary retirement in terms of
the concerned policy dated 22/09/2004 contained in Annexure-P/1. Vide
Annexure-P/3 he had withdrawn his application yet his application for voluntary
retirement was accepted by the authorities vide Annexure-P/12 dated
27/12/2004. It is submitted that there is a clause contained in Annexure-P/1
which provides that once an application is filed under the scheme before the
competent authority for voluntary retirement, then that will be treated to be his
final decision and he will not have any option to withdraw it.
3. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
o f Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Ramesh Kumar, (2007) 8
SCC 141 it is held that once the revocation is made by the incumbent before
three months then in that case the Corporation cannot act upon the offer of
voluntary retirement unless it is accepted prior to its withdrawal.
4. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this High
Court in W.P. No.3333/2005 (S.D. Bawse Vs. Food Corporation of India
and others) wherein the Coordinate Bench has held that respondents are not
only required to reinstate the petitioner but if he has not already attained the age
of superannuation, all consequential benefits including arrears of salary till the
age of superannuation etc. are to be paid within a period of three months. Writ
Appeal filed against this order registering W.A. No.554/2013 was dismissed by
Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court vide order dated 01/07/2013. SLP
filed by Food Corporation of India too was dismissed vide order dated
20/09/2013. Thus, it is submitted that this legal preposition has become final
that despite there being an embargo from withdrawal, once the application is
withdrawn prior to its acceptance, then that is a valid withdrawal.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the
judgment cited by him and also taking into consideration the law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Copper Limited and
another Vs. Banshi Lal & others, AIR 2006 SC 3574 wherein it is held that
voluntary retirement scheme being contractual in nature, offer made by
respondents-employees could be withdrawn before it was accepted and then
petitioners were directed to continue the respondents in service until they reach
their age of superannuation and it was also directed that if any amount was
received by the respondents in terms of the scheme to be adjusted with the
amount of back wages, current wages or future wages, if any, this Court is of
the opinion that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Banshi Lal & others (supra) and also in view of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra) and the judgment of
Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the case of S.D. Bawse (supra),
action of the respondents cannot be sustained, accordingly, it is hereby
quashed.
6. It is directed that the respondents shall adjust the lump sum amount paid
to petitioner under the VRS scheme against the amount of back wages etc. and
settle remaining dues, if any, within 30 days of receipt of certified copy of this
order being passed today.
7. In above terms, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
