Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
S. Chalapathi vs Vice Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, ... on 5 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)ALD591, 2003(2)ALT653, (2003)IIILLJ286AP
Author: Bilal Nazki
Bench: Bilal Nazki
JUDGMENT D.S.R. Varma, J.
1. Since the grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is common, we are disposing of all the writ petitions by this common order.
2. In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions it is stated that pursuant to the introduction of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short "V.R.S.") by the respondents, the petitioners who are working in different capacities, opted for the same and accordingly they submitted letters of consent. And this fact is not in dispute. Subsequent to the said letters filed by the petitioners, they changed their mind and with an intention to continue in service, sent letters on different dates withdrawing their option. Now their grievance is that the respondents have rejected to withdraw their option already availed of.
3. According to the petitioners, they have sent letters of withdrawal before their consent is accepted by the respondent-Corporation and, therefore they contend that as per Clause 10 of V.R.S., unless the request is accepted and a communication to that effect is issued, it cannot be said that the respondents have accepted their option. Further all the petitioners in chorus alleged that the respondent-Organisation has not communicated any letters accepting their option for V.R.S and they also did not receive any communication to that effect and, therefore, it does not amount to acceptance of their option and hence they are not bound by it. They further contend that rejection of their applications for withdrawal of option for V.R.S. is illegal and arbitrary.
4. In the counter affidavits filed in all these writ petitions, it is stated that the V.R.S. has been introduced in three phases issuing Circulars from time to time, with the main object of slashing down the man power due to various financial constraints and in response to the same, several members including the petitioners opted for the Scheme and accordingly they gave letters of consent and after receiving the letters, the same were accepted and a communication to that effect was given to all the petitioners and hence now it is not open for the petitioners either to withdraw their option or contend that they have not received the communications. It is to be noted that when the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that they have communicated the proceedings accepting the option availed of by the petitioners for V.R.S., with dates, no reply affidavit is filed denying this fact. In such circumstances, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the version of the respondent-organization with regard to communication of letters of acceptance.
5. In the counter affidavit it is also stated that consequent upon the acceptance of V.R.S. by the petitioners, the posts held by them were also abolished as per guidelines issued by the Government. In view of this fact also, we have no option to hold that the petitioners have addressed letters of withdrawal after the acceptance of their option by the respondent-organization.
6. Further from the counter it also appears that subsequent to the introduction of V.R.S. the respondent - Corporation had also auctioned the machinery and at present it appears that there is no work to the petitioners.
7. Further for better appreciation, it is necessary to note Clause 10 of V.R.S. as under:--
Once the request under Voluntary Retirement Scheme has been accepted by the organization and communicated to the employees in writing it shall not be open to the employees to withdraw the request.
8. It is to be seen from the counter that the letters of withdrawal are subsequent to the dates of acceptance and communication. Hence, we have no doubt to hold that the condition under Clause 10 of the Scheme had been faithfully complied with and further it could be found that the letters of withdrawal are only after the acceptance of their earlier applications for V.R.S.
9. Apart from the above contention, which is rejected, in some of the writ petitions, it is contended that even though their option for V.R.S. is accepted, since the same is subject to fulfilment of certain conditions like payment of some amounts, and also subject to result of disciplinary proceedings pending, if any, and as those conditions were not fulfilled by the respondent - organization and also since they are working even after the acceptance of their V.R.S., their application for withdrawal of their option, cannot be rejected.
10. In similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 912/1999 dated 14.7.1999, held at paragraph No. 4 as under:--
.... once the voluntary retirement has been accepted and the appellants by their own act and conduct ratified the same up to 2.3.1999 the appellants cannot be permitted to reprobate and resile from their offer. Since funds have not been released the appellants have not yet been relieved from service. They have not suffered any prejudice either. Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the State is directed to release the funds within two months to the Corporation. On receipt of funds from the Government the retiral benefits be given to the appellants and in terms of the offer for voluntary retirement, the Corporation will be at liberty to relieve the appellants from service.
11. Similar view was expressed by an earlier Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 243/1999 dated 24.2.1999 and following the same my learned brother Justice Bilal Nazki disposed of WP No. 11085/1999 dated 11-6-1999 in the same terms.
12. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.