Chandra Shekhar Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—Looking to existing sickness in cooperative institutions mainly because of heavy establishment and over-sized staff in most of the cooperative institutions, the Government of Rajasthan introduced a Scheme of creation of "State Cooperative Renewal Fund for Providing Assistance to Cooperative Institution for Pruning their Staff in order to Increase their Profitability". By the scheme aforesaid, the Government desired for restructuring the credit, marketing and processing cooperation for improving their viability in cooperative sectors. The task sought to be achieved required adjustment, renewal and assistance to the cooperative institutions. In this series, it was also decided to allow an opportunity for voluntary retirement to the existing employees of the cooperative sector, who completed 10 years of service or completed 40 years of age. The right to grant voluntary retirement to an employee was kept within discretion of the management of the cooperative society, however, for rejecting such request, it was obligatory for the management to record reasons in writing. The terms and conditions for seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme concerned reads as follows:

The Management of the institution will have the right not to grant, the voluntary retirement for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

The petitioner an Upper Division Clerk with the respondent Society submitted an application on 23.06.1994 seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme aforesaid. No action was taken by the respondents for a pretty long time and ultimately by a communication dated 27.02.1997, the General Manager, Spinfed-Spinning Unit-Gulabpura informed the petitioner that his case under Voluntary Retirement Scheme was not accepted by the appropriate authority. The contents of the letter dated 27.02.1997 reads as follows:

By this Registered Notices you are being informed that your case under Voluntary Retirement Scheme has been not accepted by the appropriate authority.

To challenge the rejection of the request made for voluntary retirement, this petition for writ is preferred.

It is contended by Shri P.P. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per Para 3.2 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the request of the petitioner could have been rejected by the authority competent only after recording reasons and in the instant case, no reason was recorded for making such rejection. It is also submitted by Shri Choudhary that the administrative power given to the management for considering request for voluntary retirement is required to be exercised fairly, justly and with all objectivity and in the present case, there was no just reason to reject the request made by the petitioner. It is urged that the fact that a decision was taken on the application submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement after a lapse of more than 2 and 1/2 years, clearly shows that the respondents had no just reason to deny voluntary retirement, thus no prompt and immediate action was taken.

Per contra, as per the reply filed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner was absenting from duties right since 16.08.1993 and he was in habit of availing leaves including casual leave, privilege leave, ESI leave/leave without pay. As per the respondents, the petitioner after submitting the application for voluntary retirement, did not choose to report on duties and, therefore, an explanation was sought from him. The petitioner informed that he was not in position to join duties because of his ailment and, therefore, a Medical Board was constituted and that examined the petitioner in the month of December, 1994, however, no report of the medical examination so made, was received. Nothing is said by the respondents regarding recording of reasons while rejecting request of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement.

This Court on 06.10.2009, while adjourning the matter for today, orally instructed learned Counsel for the respondents to make available the record, wherein request of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement was considered and rejected, accordingly, the same is made available and is shown to the Court. From perusal of the entire record, it reveals that as a matter of fact, some issue with regard to petitioner''s absence from duties since 16.08.1993 was under consideration with the respondents and after receiving the request for voluntary retirement on 23.06.1994, no independent consideration on that was made. All order sheets and notings, as a matter of fact, relates to absence of the petitioner from the duties either prior to 23.06.1994 or subsequent thereto. In different notings, though reference of the request made by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement is given, but absence of consideration thereon is conspicuous. The respondents vide letter dated 27.02.1997 informed the petitioner that the appropriate authority has not accepted his case under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, however, the notings in the record prior to 27.02.1997, since from 08.05.1996 simply mentions recording absence of the petitioner. True it is, the order sheet dated 08.05.1996 refers that the management is having absolute right to not granting voluntary retirement, however, it nowhere mentions the reasons for not accepting the petitioner''s request. From perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the respondents have not recorded the reasons for not accepting petitioner''s request for seeking voluntary retirement, as required under Para 3.2 of the scheme concerned.

Beside above, it is also pertinent to note that the purpose of the voluntary retirement scheme was to get rid by the cooperative institutions from their bulky staff. The voluntary retirement from the staff under the Scheme was desired with an object that the retrenchment of surplus staff would have huge financial implications and by reducing staff through retirement, the institutions would have prune their establishment and to go in for modernisation and automisation. The petitioner submitted an application desiring voluntary retirement and admittedly no disciplinary action was under contemplation then for serious allegations like mis-appropriation of funds, causing financial loss to the institution or causing any harm to the repute of the institution. The sole issue under consideration, what it appears from the record, was only with regard to absence from duties and for that an explanation was given by the petitioner regarding his ailment. At the instance of the respondents, a medical board was constituted and the petitioner was examined by that, however, no result of that was received till last. In such circumstances, the appropriate course available to the employer was to accept the petitioner''s request for voluntary retirement, as that would have been in consonance with aim and objectives of the scheme. I do not find any just reason available to the employer for rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement.

In view of whatever discussed above, the petition for writ deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The decision of the respondents rejecting the petitioner''s request seeking voluntary retirement is declared illegal and, therefore, the same is quashed. The petitioner is deemed to be treated as voluntarily retired from services of the respondent employer w.e.f. 23.06.1994 as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced under Annexure 3. The petitioner shall be entitled for all benefits arising out of the scheme aforesaid.