Md. Irshad Ahmad v. UOI & Anr

VEENA BIRBAL, J. November 29, 2010 ssb

* 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 1