AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.
The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay him the difference amount of voluntary retirement of
two years to the extent of Rs. 1,24,543/- and also the difference amount of leave and gratuity to the extent of Rs. 2,25,800/- on the basis of the
petitioner''s claim that his retirement age has to be treated as 60 years and not 58 years.
The petitioner was an employee of the Hindustan Copper Limited. He obtained voluntary retirement under the, scheme floated by his employer
in December, 2002 whereafter he was paid his entire retiral and other monetary benefits to which he was entitled. Subsequently, the petitioner filed
the instant writ application in July, 2005 claiming that as per the original terms and conditions of his service, his retirement age was fixed at 60 years
and as such, even though the petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme floated by the employer, he was entitled to the
monetary benefits till he attains the age of retirement of 60 years.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner.
It is sought to be explained that though Initially the service conditions of the petitioner stipulated the age of retirement at 60 years but
subsequently by a notification dated 29.09.2001, pursuant to the amendment brought in the N.M.D.C. Service Regulations, the age of retirement
has been reduced from 60 years to 58 years and this was notified adequately to all the employees including the petitioner even prior to the date of
his opting for voluntary retirement. It is contended that the petitioner cannot therefore argue that the age of retirement was 60 years and not 58
years.
As it appears from the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the petitioner had obtained his voluntary retirement in
December, 2002 and prior to the date of his voluntary retirement, he was informed about the revised date of retirement as per the amended clause
of the Service Rules. Considering the above facts, it appears that the petitioner is labouring under some the medical examination, were made in the
register on which each of the candidates had put his signature. However, since as per rules, such register and documents are not supposed to be
retained for more than three months, therefore, the register was destroyed.
From the rival submissions, as it appears, though the petitioner had appeared at the written and physical tests and was found successful, but he
was declared unfit medically. Merely because of the fact that the petitioner had qualified in the written and physical tests, he does not acquire any
right to claim appointment unless he satisfies the concerned authorities in respect of the other eligibility criteria.
Furthermore, as it appears from the counter affidavit of the '' respondents, the petitioner''s contention that he was not allowed to sit at the
subsequent examination has been firmly denied by the respondents.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The petitioner
would however be at liberty to submit his application in response to any fresh advertisement issued by the concerned authorities of the respondents
for filling up the vacancies on the post of constable.