AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus or direction holding that he is entitled to seek voluntary retirement in accordance with Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide Annexure-A1, dated 12-4-1993 and further sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to retire him from service in accordance with the Scheme and grant consequential benefits including the additional monetary benefits in accordance with Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide application at Annexure-B, dated 13-7-1994 submitted by the petitioner. Further, by filing interlocutory application I.A. IV under Order 6, Rule 17, the petitioner has prayed for additional prayer seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order bearing No. APM(A)/ENQ/CWE/97-98, dated 2nd September, 1997 an order of dismissal vide Annexure-S as the same is illegal and is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also is violative of Standing Order Clause 14 of the Certified Standing Orders. Further, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hold that the petitioner was ceased to be the employee of BGML with effect from 16-11-1995 and direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits consequent upon quashing the above order, urging various facts and legal contentions.
The brief necessary facts are stated for the purpose of considering the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsels for the parties and to answer the same. The first respondent-Company has issued the notification dated 12-4-1993 vide Annexure-A1 introducing Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short, ''VRS'') in the company inviting applications from its eligible employees who are intending to avail the same. It is stated that the applications submitted by the applicants will be considered only in respect of the posts declared surplus. Annexures-A and A1 is the list of surplus categories of employees. In the said list, 19 posts of Assistant Foreman (Mechanical/Electrical) and 6 posts of Foreman Electrical were declared to be surplus in the respondent-Company.
It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working as Electrical Foreman-I as on the date the VRS was introduced vide Annexure-A1. The said Scheme was extended vide Annexure-E, dated 18-7-1994 till 15-8-1994. The petitioner submitted an application on 13-7-1994 against the said notification issued at Annexure-A1 seeking the benefit of VRS claiming that he is entitled for the said benefit. The second respondent issued an endorsement rejecting the application of the petitioner vide Annexure-D, dated 19-7-1994 which reads as under:
"We refer to your letter dated 13-7-1994 on the above subject and write to state that the posts of Foreman 1/II, Electrical, Competency Certificate holders are declared as ''non-surplus'' and not covered under the Scheme. Since you are holding the non-surplus post and that not covered under the Scheme, your application for Voluntary Retirement has not been processed".
Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the reliefs as referred to above. It is alleged that, during pendency of this writ petition, the respondents have started harassing him therefore, he filed an application in this petition seeking permission of this Court to tender his resignation to his post without prejudice to the contentions urged in this writ petition. The said application was considered by this Court on 9-11-1995 and an order on that application was passed which reads as under:
"Petitioner has tendered resignation to the post in question. It is open to the respondents to consider the same independent of this petition. I.A. shall stand disposed of accordingly".
It is also a case of the petitioner that, invoking his right under Clause 14(a) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company submitted an application to the respondent-Company resigning to the post after expiry of thirty days vide Annexure-K for the reasons mentioned in the said application without prejudice to the contentions urged in this writ petition, further it is stated in the resignation letter that he has not given up any claim in the writ petition and he had requested the respondent-Company to accept his resignation. No action has been taken on this resignation letter by the respondent-Company. The case sought to be made out by the petitioner''s Counsel Mr. Vamshi Krishna on the resignation letter is, that the employer has the right to terminate the services of an employee by either giving one month''s notice or one month''s salary in lieu of notice under the provisions of Clause 14(a) of the Certified Standing Orders of the company. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said resignation letter has come into force after expiry of one month after receipt of resignation letter. It is further urged that though the respondents have acknowledged the resignation submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-K, no order has been passed on the said resignation letter. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is deemed acceptance of resignation letter after expiry of one month from the date of receipt of the same as per Clause 14(a) of the Company''s Certified Standing Orders and the services of the petitioner in the first respondent-Company has been terminated.
The first respondent-Company has initiated the disciplinary proceedings by issuing the charge-sheet on 27-11-1996 which was sent to the petitioner by registered post. The petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the charges made against him. The charges is that the petitioner even after seven days, he continued to remain absent for work and after conducting an ex parte enquiry, the services of the petitioner were dismissed as per Clause 20(a)(7) read with Clause 20(b)(1) of the Company''s Certified Standing Orders vide order dated 2-9-1997 (Annexure-S). This order is challenged in this petition by way of an amendment to the prayer of this petition on the ground that, first respondent had no jurisdiction and authority to invoke its power under the Certified Standing Orders and initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for the reason that much earlier to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Company, the resignation letter was submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-K, dated 16-10-1995 as provided under the Certified Standing Orders after expiry of one month thereon, since the company has not taken any decision on the resignation letter submitted by the petitioner, therefore it is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is a deemed acceptance of the resignation and the services of the petitioner were terminated to his post in the company by deemed acceptance of the resignation letter under Clause 14(a) of the Certified Standing Orders. Therefore, it is contended that the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner at Annexure-S is without jurisdiction and authority of law and therefore it is a nullity in the eye of law. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
The learned Counsel Mr. Vamshi Krishna appearing on behalf of the petitioner has sought to place reliance on the unreported judgment of this Court rendered in W.P. No. 28307 of 1991, DD: 22-1-1997 in support of his submission that, there is a deemed acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner under the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. The said writ petition was pending before this Court for non-consideration of VRS of that petitioner for irrelevant reasons. This Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 2449 to 2453 of 1990 has granted the relief declaring that the services of an employee on medical ground would not dis-entitle him for consideration of his applications which were submitted earlier to the date of their termination on medical ground and grant of the VRS benefit under the Scheme as the declaration that would be made by this Court in the proceedings would relate back to the date of making application by the petitioner, claiming VRS benefits. Therefore, it is contended that the first respondent is bound to declare that he is entitled to take VRS with reference to the date on which he made an application.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Company Mr. A.S. Bopanna has sought to justify the impugned endorsement at Annexure-D, dated 19-7-1994 holding that, the petitioner was no entitled to be declared as surplus employee therefore he was entitled to be retired under the VRS as on the date of his first application dated 13-7-1994 and further, the resignation letter at Annexure-K, dated 16-10-1995 submitted by the petitioner is a conditional one and therefore he could not have been accepted by the Company. Therefore, no decision was taken on the said application. Therefore, the petitioner was treated as unauthorised absentee to his regular work in the Company which act of him has constituted an act of misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. Therefore it is stated that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, ex parte enquiry proceedings were conducted, second show-cause notice was served upon him by sending the same through Registered Post acknowledgement due. He did not furnish explanation to the second show-cause notice. Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority of the company and an order of dismissal was rightly passed against the petitioner after accepting the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer holding that the misconduct of unauthorised absence of the petitioner is established. Therefore, the learned Counsel has justified the order of dismissal against the petitioner is perfectly legal and valid, which need not be interfered with the same by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
The learned Counsel Mr. Bopanna appearing for respondents-Company would further submits that, the reliance placed upon the notifications at Annexures-A and A1 and Annexure-E are not applicable to the facts of the case for more than one reason. The application submitted by the petitioner against VRS at Annexure-A1, dated 13-7-1994 was beyond the limitation prescribed in the said notification. Though further notification was issued at Annexure-E, it is not a continuation of notification at Annexure-A1. Therefore, his application was barred by limitation. Notwithstanding the above said contention, the Company considered the application and issued endorsement at Annexure-D by assigning valid and cogent reasons holding that the petitioner comes within non-surplus executive category and not entitled for availing VRS. Therefore, he would submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Company Mr. Bopanna submitted placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Gowtham Tendulkar and Another v State of Karnataka and Another, 2001(2) Kar. L.J. 485, for the proposition that, this Court should not exercise its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner as he has got an effective alternative remedy of raising an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, as he is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the said Act. Rebutting this legal contention of the learned Counsel for the company, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vamshi Krishna has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and Others, AIR 1999 SC 22, wherein the Apex Court has ruled notwithstanding the effective alternative remedy provided to an aggrieved person, if there is violation of the principles of natural justice, the High Court can exercise its extraordinary and discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and grant the relief to the petitioner as the order of dismissal was passed on the basis of the ex parte enquiry proceedings without giving an opportunity to him, which is in blantant violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition for quashing the order of dismissal and the impugned endorsement and further direct the company for according the VRS benefits to him.
After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties at length, I have perused the petition averments, the statement of counterfiled by the company, considered the documents and also considered the rival contentions with reference to the case-law urged by the learned Counsels for the parties. I proceed to answer the rival contentions by assigning the following reasons:
It is an undisputed fact that VRS was introduced by the respondent-Company by issuing the notification at Annexure-A1, dated 1-4-1993. No doubt, the last date for submitting the application by the eligible employees was on 10-5-1993, the said date was extended upto 15-8-1994 by issuing another notification vide Annexure-E, dated 18-7-1994. Having regard to this notification, though the petitioner has not submitted his application on or before 10-5-1993 as mentioned at Annexure-A1, within the extended time as referred at Annexure-E, he has submitted an application on 13-7-1994. The petitioner''s application was within the time-limit for consideration of his claim is an undisputed fact. The said application filed by the petitioner has been considered and rejected by giving reasons at Annexure-D which are extracted in this order for proper consideration of the parties. It is also an undisputed fact that, vide Annexures-A to A1, the list of surplus categories of employees who are entitled for seeking VRS benefits under the notification Annexures-A1 and E are mentioned. In the said list of surplus employees, Assistant Foreman (Mechanical/Electrical)-19 posts and Foreman Electrical-6 posts are specifically mentioned as surplus employees. In view of this undisputed fact mentioned at Annexures-A to A1, the reason assigned by the second respondent in the impugned order at Annexure-D is ex facie false for the reason that the said fact is non-existing. The first respondent-Company being a public sector company contrary to its own documents vide Annexures-A to A1 it has assigned its reasons while considering the application of the petitioner under the VRS Scheme and rejected the application holding that the petitioner is not entitled for VRS benefit. This important aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by this Court while examining and considering for grant of the relief sought for by the petitioner. The legality and validity of the endorsement at Annexure-D is challenged before this Court. I.A. I was filed before this Court seeking permission of this Court to submit his resignation letter to resign to his post in the company for the reasons mentioned therein. The said application was considered by this Court on 9-11-1995 and an order came to be passed vide Annexure-G stating that it is open to the respondents herein to consider the same independent of this petition. It is an undisputed fact that, resignation letter of the petitioner at Annexure-K, dated 16-10-1995 was received by the first respondent-Company. It is also an undisputed fact that, no decision is taken on the same either accepting the same or rejecting it. To appreciate the legal submission made by the petitioner regarding the deemed acceptance of his resignation to his post. For this purpose it is relevant to extract Clause 14(a) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company, which reads thus.-
"14. Termination of Employment -Notice to be given by the Employer and Workmen.-(a) The management may terminate the services of any permanent workmen by giving one month''s notice in writing or one month''s pay in lieu of such notice. Any permanent workman may leave the services by giving one month''s notice in writing or one month''s pay in lieu of such notice".
By reading the above said clause of CSO, it makes very clear that either employer or employee on giving one month''s notice in writing or one month''s pay in lieu of such notice to leave the services of the company. Even after expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice of termination at Annexure-K, submitted by the petitioner requesting the company to accept his resignation to the post for the reasons mentioned therein, the respondents have not taken any action in the matter. The submission on behalf of the respondent-company in this regard is that, the respondents did not take any action on the resignation letter submitted by the petitioner as the resignation letter submitted by him at Annexure-K was a conditional one. This submission of the respondents cannot be accepted having regard to the peculiar facts of this case namely the allegation made by the petitioner that during pendency of this writ petition, the respondents started harassing him therefore, he was compelled to give resignation letter is the case sought to be established in this case by the petitioner, prima facie it has to be accepted by this Court though this allegation of the petitioner was denied by the respondents keeping in view the incorrect finding recorded by them at Annexure-D the endorsement issued by the respondent-Company to the application submitted by the petitioner seeking Voluntary Retirement under the Scheme framed by the company and an order of this Court dated 9-11-1995 on the application of the petitioner with an observation to consider the resignation letter independent of this petition.
After submission of the resignation letter vide Annexure-K by the petitioner to the company, without taking any decision on the resignation letter by the respondent-Company, it has further proceeded to initiate disciplinary proceedings in exercise of its power under the Certified Standing Orders by issuing charge-sheet dated 27-11-1996 alleging that the petitioner has remained unauthorisedly absent by himself. The ex parte enquiry proceedings were conducted and finding was recorded by the Enquiry Officer holding that the petitioner was guilty of unauthorised absence. The said ex parte enquiry proceedings were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the second show-cause notice was served on the petitioner through Registered Acknowledgment Due. By perusing the same, it does not disclose as to whether, second show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner or not. The company has proceeded further to pass the order of dismissal in exercise of its power under the Certified Standing Orders dismissing the petitioner from his services, without taking any decision on the resignation letter submitted by the petitioner. This order is also questioned by the petitioner in these proceedings, urging various contentions which are referred to in the narration of facts of the case of this order.
No doubt, an effective alternative remedy is provided to the petitioner under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for raising an industrial dispute and getting the reference made to the Central Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute regarding the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner is available. The reliance placed upon the judgment in Gowtham Tendulkar''s case by the Counsel for the respondent-Company wherein the law laid down by this Court for the proposition an alternative remedy available to the party, he shall be asked to avail the same cannot be disputed. However, the reliance placed upon the judgment in Whirlpool Corporation''s case by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is considered wherein it is held that an alternative remedy is no bar for this Court to exercise its discretionary and extraordinary power under Article 226 if it is established that there is violation of principles of natural justice. In the instant case, undisputedly, the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the company are ex parte therefore, the legal submission made on behalf of the petitioner that an alternative remedy is no bar for this Court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution is well-founded and the same must be accepted. Therefore, I answer the contention regarding alternative remedy is no bar for this Court to interfere with the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner having to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, I hold that, alternative remedy available for the petitioner to raise an Industrial Dispute regarding the order of dismissal passed by the Company against the petitioner is no bar to exercise the power of this Court and to consider whether relief of quashing Annexure-S can be granted or not.
For having answered the legal contention urged by the respondent-Company Counsel regarding the alternative remedy against the company, I have proceeded to examine the legality and validity of the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner, since the resignation letter was submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-K to the respondent-Company in pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 9-11-1995 vide Annexure-G read with Clause 14(a) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. By reading Clause 14(a), it makes clear that the petitioner has got a statutory right to give one month''s notice to get his services terminated from the company. This statutory legal requirement has been complied with by the petitioner by submitting resignation letter at Annexure-K which in fact is one month''s notice given to the company to accept and permit him to resign to the post. It is also an undisputed fact that, though the respondents have received the resignation letter they have not taken any action upon the same. Therefore, this Court has to record a finding that there is a deemed acceptance of resignation letter submitted by the petitioner as the petitioner has submitted one month notice as contemplated under the Clause 14(a) of the CSO to get his services terminated, if the respondents were not willing to accept the notice of resignation they should have considered the same and could have rejected the notice of resignation by assigning valid and cogent reasons. This Court, for the reasons stated supra has to record a finding that, Annexure-K was required to be considered by the respondent as it was a statutory notice under Clause 14(a) and undisputedly, no action was taken on the resignation letter after expiry of 30 days there is a termination of service by the petitioner for the reasons mentioned at Annexure-K. Therefore, this Court has to record a finding having regard to the undisputed facts stated supra that there is deemed resignation of the petitioner with effect from 16-10-1995 from his services of the Company.
The next question that would arise for this Court''s consideration is, whether the company had the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the alleged ground of misconduct of unauthorised absence of the petitioner from 1-10-1995 having regard to the undisputed fact of submission of notice of resignation, which was indisputably acknowledged by the respondents company and no decision was taken by them and the reasons assigned by them for not taking a decision on resignation letter is wholly untenable in law and whether the Company had jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings to pass the order of dismissal, having regard to the undisputed fact of submission of resignation letter is required to be considered and answered by this Court. As I have already recorded a finding on the resignation letter at Annexure-K holding that there is a deemed acceptance of resignation of the petitioner from his services after expiry of one month from the date of receipt of resignation letter. Therefore, I have to answer that the Company had no jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as he had resigned to his post on account of deemed resignation as per Annexure-K for the valid reasons assigned in the resignation letter. Apart from the aforesaid reasons, the order of dismissal is unsustainable in law for another reason that, the order of dismissal is passed ex parte without strictly complying with the statutory provisions of the CSO and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court has to hold that the order of dismissal is unsustainable in law. For initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against an employee of the Company, the definite procedure has been laid down in the Certified Standing Orders and the same should have been complied and it was also required to comply principles of natural justice before passing the order of dismissal. In the instant case, by perusing Annexure-S, the order of dismissal with reference to second show-cause notice dated 26-8-1997 stating that, after the ex parte enquiry proceedings and after acceptance of findings of the Enquiry Officer after lapse of 7 days from the date of issuance of second show-cause notice, petitioner has not submitted his explanation. Therefore, the company has proceeded to impose the proceedings and after acceptance of findings of the Enquiry Officer after lapse of 7 days from the date of issuance of second show-cause notice, petitioner has submitted his explanation. Therefore, the Company has proceeded to impose the major penalty of dismissal for extraneous circumstances and without consideration of the relevant facts as to why lesser punishment other that the order of dismissal, could not be imposed by it even assuming for the sake of arguments that the respondent-company has the power to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner the aforesaid relevant aspect of the matter was not considered by the company before passing major penalty of dismissal, which was totally unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore this Court has to record a finding holding that the order of dismissal is wholly unsustainable in law.
The Enquiry records pertaining to the order of dismissal are not produced before this Court by the Company for perusal by this Court to show that the statutory requirements as provided under the CSO and the principles of natural justice have been complied with before passing the order of dismissal against the petitioner to justify the same on the basis of the record. In the absence of not placing the enquiry record before this Court, though these proceedings are in the nature of writ of certiorari, this Court has to consider the rival contentions of the parties on the basis of the record, the Company was required to produce the record. But it has not produced the same. Therefore, this Court has to record a finding holding that, passing of the dismissal order produced at Annexure-S against the petitioner is not in compliance with the statutory provisions of the Certified Standing Orders and also the principles of natural justice. For this reason also, the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside.
Having answered all the contentions raised by the respondent-Company against the Company holding that the reason assigned at Annexure-D the impugned endorsement stating that the petitioner was non-surplus employee is contrary to their own record for the reason it has accepted the applications of seven Foremen, Grade I in the Electrical Department have been retired in pursuant to the notification at Annexure-M and the petitioner has produced the names of Foremen who have retired under the VRS, as per Annexure-P and therefore the benefit of voluntary retirement under the Scheme was arbitrarily denied to this petitioner by the respondent-Company. The said endorsement is challenged in this writ petition. The subsequent events and attitude of the personnel of the Company towards the petitioner has made to submit his resignation letter as provided under Clause 14(a) of the CSO which was not considered by the Company without valid and tenable reasons and allowed it to take its legal consequences of deemed acceptance of his resignation from his services after expiry of one month from the date of receipt of the resignation letter. On the basis of the rival contentions, I have already recorded a finding both on facts and the legal contentions raised by the parties holding that there is deemed resignation letter of the petitioner, terminating his services from the company under the CSO. When there is deemed resignation of the petitioner from the services of the Company by the petitioner under Clause 14(a) of the CSO of the Company. For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner by the company is liable to be quashed.
The last question for consideration by this Court is, whether the petitioner would relate back to the position as on the date of submitting of his application on 13-7-1994 claiming the benefit of voluntary retirement under the Scheme and whether this Court can issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents as prayed by the petitioner, this Court has examined this aspect and considered the contentious issue with reference to the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsels for the parties keeping in view the unreported judgments of this case referred to supra in similar case.
In this regard, the reliance placed upon the unreported judgments of this Court in W.P. No. 28307 of 1991, DD: 22-1-1997 and the Division Bench has held in W.A. Nos. 2449 to 2453 of 1990 that an employee subsequent to filing of writ petition regarding non-consideration of applications seeking VRS under the Scheme subsequent to filing of the writ petitions the employee was medically unfit to continue in service, he was accordingly retired on medical grounds on 15-2-1991, subsequently the writ appeals were taken up for hearing on 24-6-1991, and the same were allowed and this Court held that he was entitled to avail the benefits under the Scheme as sought by him. Therefore, this Court has held the claim of the employee has to be considered by the Company as on the date of the application submitted by the employee/petitioner as the declaration of this Court relates to the date of his making application in pursuance of the Schemes at Annexures-A and E. This Court has held in the aforesaid writ petition and writ appeals that the doctrine of relation back will apply to an employee and therefore the petitioner is eligible to seek voluntary retirement in the year 1994 and the fact that subsequent thereto the petitioner became ineligible to continue in service is of no consequence for considering his claim, because had his application been accepted earlier by the company he could not have suffered with an order of dismissal. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Voluntary Retirement Scheme benefit under the service. Therefore, the direction was issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions the date relates back to officiating date. The aforesaid unreported judgment of this Court would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Therefore, I have to answer the third point also in favor of the petitioner and hold that the petitioner is entitled for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Company for consideration of his application as on 13-7-1994 keeping in view the Scheme at Annexure-A and list of categories of employees mentioned at Annexure-A1 and also the extension of Scheme vide Annexure-E. For these reasons, the submission made by Mr. Vamshi Krishna, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is well-founded and the same must be accepted. On the other hand, for the reasons stated by me, on various legal contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Mr. Bopanna are not tenable in law and the same cannot be accepted. Further, the reasons assigned in the impugned endorsement at Annexure-D and the order of dismissal at Annexure-S are liable to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following order:
The writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-D, dated 19-7-1994 and the order of dismissal vide Annexure-S, dated 2-9-1997 are hereby quashed. I declare and hold that there is deemed acceptance resignation of the petitioner from his services of the company with effect from 16-10-1995. Further, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 13-7-1994 keeping in view the VRS Scheme at Annexure-A and list of surplus category employees vide Annexure-A1 and extension of Scheme vide Annexure-E and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. After examining the application of the petitioner, if it is found by the authorities that the petitioner is entitled for the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, all the consequential benefits that flow from the said Scheme shall be paid to him within two weeks from the date of taking such decision in the matter.