Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.42 seconds)Union Of India vs Tarsem Singh on 19 September, 2019
11. It is thus, too late in the day for the petitioners after having
accepted the VRS and having realised their arrear pay to contend
that they were fundamentally suffering from a lack of information
as regards the reasoning which prompted the authorities to grant
approval to a mode of settlement of arrears, as stipulated in the
said agreement. The purported protest letter dated 30th December,
2011 relied on by the petitioners in the reply to the supplementary
affidavit of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been issued obviously as
and by way of an afterthought, after having realised the entire
amount under the VRS. Although, the learned advocate for the
13
WPA 818 of 2016
with 2026:CHC-AS:349
CAN 5 of 2025
petitioners has relied on the judgment delivered in the case of
Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304,
the said judgment does not assist the petitioners. The aforesaid
judgment has been delivered in a matter relating to land acquisition
and has nothing to do with a case of this nature where the
petitioners have already accepted the package under voluntary
retirement, which was obviously done with the object of
expeditiously settling its dues.
Manoj Kumar Rai vs Union Of India And Others on 6 November, 1992
Similarly, the judgment relied on in
the case of Manoj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., reported in
(2024) 3 SCC 563, also does not assist the petitioners. The
aforesaid case deals with the appointment as a primary teacher in a
school. It is in relation to such proceedings and the manner in
which marks had been denied on the ground that the petitioner
therein did not possess post graduate degree in relevant subject,
was considered to be arbitrary in the facts of such case. The said
judgment also does not assist the petitioners. In the said case the
petitioner was denied the appointment by an executive order which
was ultimately set aside as being illegal and arbitrary.
Notwithstanding the above, since, the school for which the
advertisement was issued having been closed by the time the
executive order was set aside, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had while
observing that reasonable equivalent for restitution of the wrongful
action should be formulated, directed payment of compensation.
Such is not the case here. The petitioners to seek expeditious
14
WPA 818 of 2016
with 2026:CHC-AS:349
CAN 5 of 2025
settlement of their claim had accepted the offer of VRS. The
petitioners are thus estopped from contending otherwise.
1