By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, JULY 07, 2013: THE Petitioner was employed as a Manager in Bokaro Steel Limited, which subsequently became a unit of Steel Authority of India (SAIL) from 20.2.1998. On the same date a Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced and the Petitioner applied for the same on 7.4.1998.

Without waiting for acceptance of his application seeking VRS, the petitioner proceeded to the US of A and applied for further leave. This prayer was rejected and the petitioner was asked to join his duties from 01.07.1998. The Petitioner did not join his duties but again applied for leave. By letter dated 3.8.1998, the Company informed the Petitioner that leave had not been granted and that he was being treated as absent from duty without leave, for which disciplinary proceedings were being contemplated against him for unauthorised absence. Another letter was written on 14.8.1998, asking him to report for duty within ten days, but the Petitioner failed to respond. On 11.10.1998, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated for his unauthorised absence from duty. The Petitioner sent yet another representation on 20.11.1998 to accept his request for voluntary retirement.

Since his prayer was rejected the petitioner moved the Kerala High Court. The Kerala High Court by its Order dated 23.4.1999 directed the Union of India to dispose of the Petitioner's representation within a reasonable time.

The Petitioner was given ample opportunity to represent his case but having failed to respond, the representation was rejected vide Order dated 11.10.1999. Thereafter, on 29.12.1999, the Petitioner was found guilty in the departmental proceedings and his services were terminated.

Again the Petitioner knocked the doors of the Kerala HC but the same was rejected on the ground that the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.

Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Jharkhand High Court. This was in the year 2004.

The WP was dismissed by the Single Judge and thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Division Bench in which Petitioner's counsel strongly urged that his application for voluntary retirement be accepted. He also added a new dimension to his submissions that since there was no response from the side of the Respondent, his application for voluntary retirement must be deemed to have been accepted. Inasmuch as the subsequent proceedings taken by way of disciplinary proceedings and the order of termination of services passed therein be held to be invalid. Reliance was placed on the decision in Tek Chand Vs. Dile Ram [(2001) 3 SCC 290] but the Bench held that refusal of permission can be communicated even after the expiry of the notice period.

The Petitioner then referred to Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, and submitted that after giving a notice for voluntary retirement of not less than three months in writing the Government servant can retire voluntarily since he has completed twenty years of qualifying service and where the Appointing Authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the notice period.

The Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent company strongly opposed the Petitioner's case primarily on the ground that in a scheme for Voluntary Retirement floated by a company, it is entirely the company's discretion to accept and allow an employee's application for voluntary retirement. The concept of deemed acceptance also was not available in the instant case, since the scheme did not contain such a provision.

On the question of deemed acceptance of an employee's application for voluntary retirement, reference was made to the decision in Padubidri Damodar Shenoy Vs. Indian Airlines Limited and Another [(2009) 10 SCC 514], wherein, although, the Petitioner upon completing of 20 years' of qualifying service had applied for voluntary retirement, he was informed that such retirement would not be automatic on expiry of period of notice, but it would become effective only after the approval of the competent authority.

The Supreme Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the judgment and Order of learned Single Judge, as upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court and further observed -

“13. It is well-established that a Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by a company, does not entitle an employee as a matter of right to the benefits of the Scheme. Whether an employee should be allowed to retire in terms of the Scheme is a decision which can only be taken by the employer company, except in cases where the Scheme itself provides for retirement to take effect when the notice period comes to an end. A Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by a company is essentially a part of the company's desire to weed out the deadwood.

14. The Petitioner's contention that his application for voluntary retirement came into effect on the expiry of the period of notice given by him must fail, since there was no such stipulation in the scheme that even without acceptance of his application it would be deemed that the Petitioner's voluntary retirement application had been accepted. Once that is not accepted, the entire case of the Petitioner falls to the ground….”

In fine, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

(See 2013-TIOL-30-SC-MISC-LB)