Keshav Prasad Soni vs M.P. Road Transport Corporation

Rajendra Menon, J.—Challenging a Voluntary Retirement Scheme as floated by the respondent M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and contending that a stipulation contained in the scheme to the effect that once an employee has opted for VRS, cannot change or withdraw his option, these writ petitions have been filed.

The question involved in the writ petitions has already been considered and decided by a Single Bench of this Court in various writ petitions and subsequently, when the matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 382/2006 and other connected cases on 20th of July, 2007, the same has also been decided by a Division Bench. The Division Bench after considering identical questions involved in the writ appeals have disposed of the writ appeals with the following direction :

"14. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, there is no scintilla of doubt that an offer made by an employee, ipso facto would not amount to resignation in praesenti and the offer can be withdrawn during the validity period. Learned Single Judge as is perceivable has dismissed some of the writ petitions and required some of the writ petitioners to seek redressal under the industrial law as the scheme was valid upto 1.8.2005. At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in this regard cannot be found fault with as the scheme in question, at the time of delivery of judgment was valid upto 1.8.2005. Presently, the scheme is valid upto 31.7.2007. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by Mr. Shobhit Aditya, learned counsel for the corporation. As the validity period of the scheme has been extended the said validity would relate back to the date of inception of the scheme and it cannot be employer has come to end. Therefore, the employees were entitled in law to withdraw their option for voluntary retirement within the validity period and as the validity period has been extended and they have withdrawn their option, they should be deemed to be in service. Be it noted that none of the appellants has accepted any kind of benefit under the voluntary retirement scheme. Some of them are continuing in service. The employees who are continuing in service should be allowed to continue till the jural relationship between the employees and the employer comes to an end as per law. The appellants who are not in service should be reinstated in service and they shall reap all the consequential benefits.

In the result, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in all cases are set aside and as a sequitur the writ appeals are allowed on the terms stated herein above. There shall be no orders as to costs."

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the aforesaid directions issued, various other writ appeals have been disposed of by a coordinate bench of this Court in W.A. No. 379/2006 and various other writ appeals decided by a common order passed on 30th of August 2007.

These cases are pending since 2008 and in the case of such of the employees who have not accepted any kind of benefit under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, they are entitled to a similar benefit as has been granted to the employees by virtue of the order passed on 20th July, 2007 in W.A. No. 382/06.

Shri Uttam Maheshwari points out that in both these cases, there are certain petitioners who have received benefits and, therefore, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench as referred to hereinabove will not be applicable to them.

Accordingly, it is directed that in case of such of the petitioners who have not accepted any kind of benefit under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the orders passed on 20th July, 2007 in W.A. No. 382/06 and on 30th August, 2007 in W.A. No. 379/06 be made applicable and benefit granted to them. However, in case of such of the petitioners who have received the benefit under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme have accepted such benefit, the respondent Corporation is free to take action by giving a cogent reason indicating that they are not entitled to a similar benefit and by giving a cogent reason, respondents are free to reject the claim of the petitioners.

However, in case of such of the petitioners who have not received the benefit, the order passed in the writ appeals as referred to hereinabove be made applicable and a benefit conferred to them.

However, it may be observed that the disposal of this petition shall be subject to whatever modification and directions issued by the Supreme Court in the pending SLP. The parties are at liberty to seek benefit in accordance to the directions that may ultimately be issued by the Supreme Court in the pending appeals.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of.