Gl Sharma vs Union Of India And Anr

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 NTPCVoluntary 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 RetirementScheme-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-Ã -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.