Punjab-Haryana High Court
**** vs Punjab State Federation Of Cooperative on 6 April, 2011
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CWP No.16035 of 2010.doc -1-
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
CWP No.16035 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.04.2011
****
BS Baidwan & Ors. . . . . Petitioners
VS.
Punjab State Federation of Cooperative
Sugar Mills Ltd. & Ors. . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Anshuman Mandhar, Advocate;
Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate;
Mr. KS Boparai, Advocate;
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate;
for the PETITIONER(s)
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab
Mr. Surjit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate;
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate
for respondent-Sugar Mills
****
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.16035, 16635, 22103, 22640 of 2010 & 1724 0f 2011 as common issues are involved in these cases.
(2). The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondent-Federation to take them back into service CWP No.16035 of 2010.doc -2- along with all consequential benefits in the light of the decision dated 07.07.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No.225 of 2006 which has been further upheld in LPA No.906 of 2010, as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP vide order dated 14.03.2011 which reads as follows:-
"These petitions are directed against the order of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the letters patent appeals filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the decision of the petitioner to accept the option exercised by the respondents under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was dismissed.
A perusal of the record shows that the learned Single Judge nullified the action of the petitioner to retire the respondents mainly on the grounds that as on the date of acceptance of the option given by the respondents, the scheme was not in force and that persons junior to the respondents had been retained in service without any rational reason. The Division Bench agreed with the learned Single Judge and dismissed the letters patent appeals by recording the following reasons:CWP No.16035 of 2010.doc -3-
"It is apparent from the records that the scheme was to remain in operation for a period of six months from the date of issuance of the notification, unless the time is extended by the Government. It is not in dispute that both the respondents were eligible for voluntary retirement. It is also not coming out from the records that request of an employee for voluntary retirement was to be processed within a period of three months by either accepting or rejecting the same. It was further provided that in case the competent authority fails to pass an order, rejecting request by the due date, as given in the scheme, the request would be deemed to have been accepted and the employee would be deemed to have retired from service. It is apparent from the records that no action was taken under the provisions of the Scheme. Its period was not extended by the Government.
It was allowed to lapse. The matter continued to remain pending between various authorities and ultimately, decision was taken to retire the private respondents vide order dated 8.9.2005. At that time, no VRS Scheme was in operation. It was incumbent for the authorities to ask the employees again to apply under the VRS scheme by extending its time. It was not done. Some employees, who were junior to the petitioners retained in service. Appellant has failed to show any rationality in retaining the junior employees."CWP No.16035 of 2010.doc -4-
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In our view, the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench for declaring as illegal the action taken by the petitioner to retire the respondents are legally correct and the special leave petitions are liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly."
(3). Notwithstanding the fact that the legal battle in identical circumstances has been lost by the respondent- Federation upto the highest Court, its learned Senior counsel urges that at that time it could not be pointed out that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is contractual in nature and its breach, would, at the best, entitle an employee to seek damages. He relies upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Tribal Co-operative Marketing Development Federation of India v. Siddhartha Kumar, (2009)2 RSJ 712. It is also urged that no writ petition is maintainable against a Co- operative Society like the respondent-Federation. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in both the contentions raised hereinabove. I say so for the reasons that the State of Punjab has pervasive control over the day-to-day affairs CWP No.16035 of 2010.doc -5- of the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills which is an Apex Body of the Cooperative Sugar Mills, who are directly or indirectly funded by the State Government. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme was also launched/notified by the State of Punjab and not by the Federation. The violation of the terms and conditions of the VRS scheme notified by the State Government, therefore, will not be a simplicter case of breach of contract restricting the claim to damages only. Such a contract essentially being a part of public policy can be enforced by a writ court.
(5). For the reasons already assigned by this Court in CWP No.225 of 2006 (Smt. Pavitar Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.) as well as by the Division Bench in LPA No.906 of 2010 (Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Smt. Pavitar Kaur & Anr.), these writ petitions are allowed in the same terms.
(6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti.
06.04.2011 (S u r y a K a n t)
vishal shonkar
Judge