VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2008 › High Court of Delhi

Tribal Co-Operative Marketingh Development Federation of India v. Siddhartha Kumar

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
15 February 2008
Bench
Reva Khetrapalauthor
Case no.
LPA 1080/2007

Judgment

order. No costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL, J FEBRUARY 15th, 2008 Rohtash

Case details

Parties and counsel

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 1080/2007 and CM Nos. 9586-87/2007 % Date of decision: 15 th February, 2008 TRIBAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING ..... Appellant DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION OF INDIA Through:Dr. Jose Verghese, Advocate versus SIDDHARTHA KUMAR ..... Respondent Through :Mr. Sudershan Rajan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Y DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein holding that his request for withdrawal was to be accepted and with a direction that the respondent would return the benefits received by him under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. A further direction was issued to the effect that the order dated 4th December, 2001 passed by the appellant, whereby the request of the respondent to withdraw himself from the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was turned down, would stand quashed with a further observation that the appellant would take in service the respondent with immediate effect, and treat him to be in service as if no application for voluntary retirement has been preferred by him. 2. The respondent was working with the appellant as Deputy Manager. While he was so serving as Deputy Manager, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced by the appellant and the same was circulated under Circular No.TFD/HO/P&A/2000-01[VRS]/CIR[03]1692 dated 24th July, 2000. Some of the relevant clauses which would have bearing for rendering a decision in the present case are extracted hereinbelow: "II. COMMENCEMENT The Scheme will be in operation with effect from 1.10.2000 and is offered to all employees of the Federation. IV. PROCEDURE 1........................... 2. An employee can be permitted to withdraw his application for Voluntary Retirement, before the Management notifies in writing to him about the decision to accept his request for Voluntary Retirement. 3......................... 4. The Competent Authority, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said application, shall take a decision to accept or reject the said application and shall communicate the decision to the official concerned. 5......................... VI. BENEFITS: .............................. a. LUMP SUM COMPENSATION An employee whose request for Voluntary Retirement has been accepted would be entitled to lump sum compensation equivalent to 3 months salary for each completed year of past service and part thereof or the monthly salary at the time of Voluntary Retirement multiplied by the balance months of service left before normal date of retirement, whichever is less. For example, if an employee who has put in 12 years of service and has got only one year of service left for normal retirement, he will get lumpsum compensation of 12 months and not for 36 months. NOTE: Salary for this purpose include Basic Pay + D.A. Only. VII SANCTIONING AUTHORITY: 1. .............................. 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Managing Director shall be fully empowered either to accept or reject any request by any employee in the overall interest of the Federation, recording the reason in writing. 3......... VIII. INTERPRETATION: If any doubt or difficulty arises in interpreting the provisions of this Scheme, or in giving effect to them, or if any, lacunae, inconsistency, or anomaly is discovered in their application, it shall be open to the Managing Director to issue general instructions or clarifications for the purpose of removing such doubt, difficulty, lacunae, inconsistency or anomaly." 3. The aforesaid Scheme, as stated hereinabove, was circulated under Circular dated 24th July, 2000. In the said Circular it was m

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.