AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A Voluntary retirement Scheme was announced by the respondent Federation in 1991, which provided for some benefits to those employees
who would opt for voluntary retirement on an application to be made by the employee concerned which was to be processed by the concerned
Department and requisite orders were to be obtained from the Managing Director of the Federation. It also prescribed proformaapplication for this
purpose.
Petitioner, who was working as UDC in the Federation, responded to this scheme and applied for voluntary retirement some time back in
November, 1991. According to him, he stipulated two conditions alongwith the application viz that his Efficiency Bar case be decided first and that
he be relieved from service on 1.4.1992.
Petitioner's case is that he had applied for voluntary retirement to start some business for which he had invested a substantial amount. He also
alleged that respondents had failed to consider and act upon his request of voluntary retirement, which coupled with his failure in the business,
constrained him to reconsider his decision. He accordingly wrote letter dated April 7, 1992 to respondent No.3 requesting him to cancel his
application for voluntary retirement. But in return he was informed that he was relieved by an order dated 10.4.1992 with effect from 1.4.1992
and was paid compensation of Rs. 36,254.66, but on the basis of his wrongly determined minimum basic pay of Rs. 560 which ought to be Rs.
620 . He accordingly prays for quashment of his relieving order and for direction to respondents to continue him in service as UDC with past
benefits and also to pay him the demage to which he was entitled under Law.
Respondents have filed a detailed reply taking a stand that the petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement on his own and had asked for being
relieved on 1.4.1992 so he was also paid compensation of Rs. 36,254.66 for doing so on 10.4.1992. It is also explained that the petitioner was
due to cross Efficiency Bar in the pay scale of Rs. 47018569EB20660EB2076030790 with effect from 1.1.1989, but due to award of low
average in Confidential Report during 198788 and 198889, he was not allowed to corss it. But in subsequent years he secured better marks and
was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from 1.1.1992 raising his pay from Rs. 560 to Rs. 580.
It is submitted that petitioner's last basic pay being Rs. 560 lump sum compen sation was released in his favour on this account. Subsequently,
on removal of his E.B. his salary was raised from Rs. 560 to Rs. 580 and he was paid the balance amount. Similary, it is pointed out that he was
paid the Gratuity after it was received from the Life Insurance Corporation and that his case for release of Provident Fund was to be decided by
the concerned Provident Fund Commissioner. Lastly, it is contended that his undertaking some business ventures and loss suffered therein was of
no relevance to his case for' voluntary retirement.
All that falls for determination is whether the respondents could be asked to take petitioner back in service in the facts and circumstances of the
case and whether his request for revoking his earlier offer of voluntary reitrement was untenable?
It is not necessary to examine the respondents plea regarding the maintainability of this petition on the ground that respondentFederation was a
Cooperative Society and not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, because otherwise also petitioner's case does not merit any
acceptance.
Looking at its totality, it comes out loud and clear that petitoner's approach was to have best of all the world. It seems that he wanted to take
the benefit of the Scheme at one stage to improve his prospects and on his failure he entertained the second thought to negate the same scheme
from which he had derived benefit. So much so that he had accepted the benefit of the Scheme by way of compensation of Rs. 36,254.66 and still
had the temerity to require respondents to cancel his offer of voluntary retirement and to reinduct him in serivce and with his past benefits. This can
neither be countenanced in law no in equity.
It is an admitted position that petitoner had sought voluntary retirement pursuant to the voluntary retirement. Scheme announced by the
respondentFederation offering some benefits. But it is not anybody's case that he was forced to seek such voluntary retirement. Nor could he do
so by imposing conditions of his own like till his case for crossing of EB was decided, because the Scheme prescribed a Proforma application on
which the employee was required to opt for voluntary retirement and which did not provide for any occassion or column whereby such empolyee
could impose his own conditions and make the offer conditional so to say.
Therefore, it is no good to say that petitioner has sought voluntary retirement on some condition and once his condition was not satisfied he
was entiled to be taken back in service. Now the fact remained that he asked for voluntary retirement in lieu of the benefit that was accepted and
was ordered to be relieved on the date of his choice i.e. 1.4.1992. He could not then turn round and go against the very basis of the scheme under
which he had taken the benefit.
Regarding petitioner's grievance that compensation due to him was not worked out correctly on the basis of his last basic pay, there is a factual
dispute in this regard. His case is that it was to be determined at the rate of Rs. 620 p.m. But respondents stand is that he received his last basic
pay of Rs. 560 on which compensation was worked out and that it could not be so determined at Rs. 620 as alleged by him.
Similarly, petitioner's claim for release of Gratuity and Provident Fund also seems to be determinable and to be decided by some authorities
other than the respondents. This aspect of the matter can be taken care of separately. But his basic case for returing to service is wholly meritless
and proceeds on his propencity to take benefit from both sides which cannot be allowed and he would have to sink both swim with the voluntary
retirement and the benefit taken in lieu thereof. Should, however, his any of the claims still be pending consideration before the concerned
authorities, including the respondents, they shall be obliged to accord consideration to his case and pass appropriate orders in accordance with
rules.
In the result, this petition is disposed of by providing as under:
That petitioner's writ petition shall stand dismissed to the extent that his plea for revoking his offer of voluntary does not merit acceptance and is
rejected and that he is not entitled to be taken back in serivce in the circumstances and facts of the case. But respondents and all other concerned
functionaries of Life Insurance Corporation, as also the provident Fund Commissioner or for that matter any other functionaries of the Union or
State, are directed to examine petitioner's claim for release of Gratuity/post pensionary benefit/Provident Fund. All such concerned authorities shall
take steps to consider and decide his case and pass appropriate orders for grant of post pensionary benefits in accordance with rules within six
months from the date of receipt of this order.