Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijnandan Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2017
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No : 15807/2006
Tulsiram Dhimole
- V/s -
Managing Director & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 16884/2006
Ravindra Kumar Jain
- V/s -
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Writ Petition No 677/2007
Smt. Nisha Sood
- V/s -
Managing Director & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 7490/2007
Samar Veer Singh
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 8719/2007
Samar Veer Singh
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 11542/2007
Phoolsingh Tomar
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 11543/2007
S.N. Katiyar
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 6757/2008
Ajay Kumar Choubey
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 6863/2008
G.S. Jatav
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 10225/2008
Rama Govind Singh Parihar
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 11448/2008
Umashankar Tiwari
- V/s -
State of M.P. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 11585/2008
Jahir Ali
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 11891/2008
Ramesh Prasad Tiwari
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 12168/2008
Firoz Khan
- V/s -
State of M.P.
Writ Petition No : 13626/2008
Dharm Prakash Rizwani
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 13628/2008
Kailash Malviya
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 5427/2009
Smt. Meena Soni
- V/s -
The State of M.P. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 5429/2009
Subhash Chandra Jain
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 6947/2009
Mukesh Kumar Yadav
- V/s -
State of M.P. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 13697/2009
Usha Saini
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 13892/2009
Manoj Pandey
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 14148/2009
Om Prakash Mishra
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 14186/2009
Ramcharit Sohgaura
- V/s -
M.P. Road Transport Corp. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 196/2011
Brij Nandan Pandey
- V/s -
State of M.P. & Ors.
Writ Petition No : 12086/2011
G.P. Choubey
- V/s -
State of M.P. & Ors.
Present :Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, J.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ashok Gupta, Arun K. Mishra, Vivek Baderiya, K.N.
Pethia, Dheerendra Khare, Vijay Chandra Rai, Shri Rajesh Arun
Rakesh Soni, Rajesh Soni, Anshuman Singh, Arvind Choubey, V.C. Rai,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Ganguli, learned GA for the respondent State.
Shri Arun Patel, Shri P.K. Mishra and Shri Shobhitaditya learned
counsel for the respondents/M.P. Road Transport Corporation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.
ORDER
09/01/2017 Per : Justice Rajendra Menon :-
1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners who are working in the establishment of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation had challenged the action of the Corporation in not accepting their applications seeking withdrawal of their option submitted under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the Corporation. Initially on various grounds and considerations writ petitions and writ appeals identical in nature were allowed by benches of this Court and finally all the matters went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the instance of the Corporation, wherein the judgments passed by this Court in writ petitions and writ appeals were challenged and finally in Civil Appeal No.4437/2009 decided on 29.8.2016 (Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Manoj Kumar and Ors.) reported in 2016 SCC Online SC 874 the matter has been decided and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra) to say that once the option for VRS has been submitted and the same has been accepted by the Corporation, a concluded contract comes into force and voluntary retirement option submitted cannot be withdrawn once the acceptance is made by the Corporation.
2. In view of the aforesaid, now the case of the petitioners stands decided against them by the Supreme Court and therefore in light of the judgment rendered in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra) we see no reason to make any indulgence into the matter.
3. Accordingly all these writ petitions are dismissed. However, the benefits of VRS and monetary benefits accruing to the petitioners by virtue of acceptance of the voluntary retirement is not granted till now, the same be granted to them within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(Rajendra Menon) (Smt. Anjuli Palo)
Judge Judge
skm