Satish Singh vs Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Transport Section)

Rajani Dubey, J

The petitioner has preferred the present petition against the order dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent authorities, whereby the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement has been allowed. The petitioner is also seeking direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate him in service with wages and consequential benefits.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as a Booking Agent with the Erstwhile M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC) from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 13.09.1982. The said MPSRTC has been dissolved w.e.f. 31.12.2002 vide notification of the Central Govt. Dated 27.12.2002 and after bifurcation, the same has been named as nodal agency of the State of Chhattisgarh and no corporation was constituted in place of MPSRTC. The petitioner was entrusted with the task of rehabilitation and redployment of the staff and he was deputed to the Department of Urban Development for clerical job vide order dated 24.05.2004 and subsequently he was posted as AG-III at Nagar Panchayat, Bilha. The Nagar Panchayat, Bilha passed a unanimous resolution on 14.02.2006 according no objection for absorption of petitioner and the same was communicated to the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development, Raipur vide letter dated 01.03.2006 for passing necessary order for absorption of the petitioner and even reminders were sent by them, but the petitioner has not been absorbed, whereas several other employees of MPSRTC have been absorbed. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 24.12.2010, but on 27.12.2010 itself the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the said application but without considering his application, the Authority has allowed his VRS application w.e.f. 31.12.2010 and even thereafter several letters/representations were made to the respondent authorities, but all went in vain, as a result of which the present writ petition has been filed.

The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“10.1 The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records for its kind perusal.

10.2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the office order dt. 31.12.2010 (Anneuxre P-1).

10.3 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent authority to reinstate the Petitioner in service with wages and other consequential benefits.

10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is bad, illegal and contrary to law. The petitioner had immediately submitted an application on 27.12.2010 for withdrawal of his VRS application, which was submitted on 24.12.2010, but despite the same, the respondent authorities allowed his VRS application on 31.12.2010. It is settled principle of law that once the employee submitted an application for withdrawal of his VRS application prior to allowing the same, then the Authority cannot allow his VRS application. He further submits that the VRS application submitted by the petitioner has been allowed without verification as to whether any disciplinary action or any criminal proceeding was pending against the petitioner. At the time of submission of his VRS application and acceptance of the same, the case of the petitioner was pending against the Corporation, which is evident from the order of the Court (Annexure-P/16). He next submits that every employee has right to withdraw his VRS application, as such the petitioner is liable to be reinstated. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shambhu Murari Sinha vs Project and Development India Ltd and Another, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 437.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that this petition is highly misconceived in nature. The respondent authority Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Raipur vide its circular dated 20.04.2010 introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2010 for the employees and officers of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, who were allocated to the new State of Chhattisgarh under the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. As per the said Scheme, those employees who opted for VRS have been duly retired from service with full and final settlement. The petitioner also opted for VRS under the said Scheme, which was duly accepted by the respondent authorities and he has been retired from service under the said Scheme w.e.f. 31.12.2010. He further submits that the petitioner’s contention that he had prayed for withdrawal of his application is false, as no such application was ever received in the office of the respondent authorities. He further submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner has never submitted an application dated 27.12.2010 for withdrawal of his VRS application dated 24.12.2010. This is only an afterthought and the petitioner somehow managed and forged the documents putting false seal of the Department in collaboration with the official staff and in doing so, the petitioner has failed to see that the seal which he put on the application is of outward dispatch (jawak lipik) and not an inward dak, which is evident from Annexure-P/14. In this way, the petitioner is trying to mislead this Court, because the petitioner’s letters dated 05.01.2011, 10.03.2011 & 12.08.2011 (Annexure-P/15 collectively) bear the same seal of outward dispatch (jawak lipik) and not an inward dak, whereas applications dated 03.01.2012, 07.05.2012 & 01.02.2013 bear the seal of inward dak, which clearly speaks that the petitioner has never submitted the earlier applications and for the sake of filing the instant writ petition, he fraudulently forged the official seal. He next submits that the petitioner has not only submitted an application opting for VRS under VRS Scheme 2010 on 24.12.2010, but also submitted an affidavit on 24.12.2010 in respect of his application. Earlier also, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court bearing WPS No.2092/2010 for absorption in the Nagar Panchayat Bilha. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application on 27.12.2010 for urgent hearing along with application for withdrawal of WPS No.2092/2010 in which the petitioner has categorically submitted that petitioner has opted for VRS under VRS Scheme and because of pendency of the instant writ petition, he may not be allowed to retire as per VRS Scheme, therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner was retired voluntarily under the VRS Scheme 2010 vide office order dated 31.12.2010 ( Annexure P/1) in view of his application dated 24.12.2010, thereafter the petitioner has also received an amount of Rs.9,40,279/ - as full and final payment pursuant to his retirement under VRS Scheme 2010 and also declared in the money Receipt dated 09.03.2011 that he has no further claim from CIDC, Transport Division, Raipur on any account whatsoever. Further, the aforesaid WPS No.2092/2010 was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.04.2011. It is settled principle of law that an employee is governed by the terms and conditions of the VRS and once the full and final payment is made to him, the same cannot be withdrawn. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bank of India and others vs O.P. Swarnakar and others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 721 and HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and another vs Heavy Engineering Corpn. Ltd and others, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 708 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Smt. Basanta Bai and another, reported in 2010 (1) CGLJ 241.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner has filed various applications showing this fact that he immediately withdrew his VRS application. The petitioner filed application for withdrawal of his VRS application on 27.12.2010 vide Annexure-P/14, whereas the VRS application was filed on 24.12.2010. In the withdrawal application, the seal of the Department is shown as jawak lipik. In the application (Annexure-P/15), the same seal bears and again in the applications dated 10.03.2011 and 12.08.2011 filed by the petitioner, same jawak lipik seal bears.

The respondent filed an application of the petitioner dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure-R/1). The affidavit of the petitioner is Annexure-R/2 and Annexure-R/3 is the application filed by the petitioner in WPS No.2092/2010 for withdrawing the said writ petition, which was filed on 27.12.2010. In this application, the petitioner contended that he wants to withdraw his writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has submitted VRS application and because of pendency of this writ petition, the respondents would not allow his VRS application, whereas last date for submitting VRS application is 31.12.2010. This application is also supported by an affidavit of the petitioner dated 26.12.2010. Annexure-R/4 is the money receipt dated 09.03.2011 and as per Annexure-R/4, the petitioner received full and final payment of Rs.9,40,279/-, as such it is clear from this document that the petitioner nowhere mentioned that he filed application for withdrawal on 27.12.2010. Even at the time of receiving amount on 09.03.2011, the petitioner did not raise any objection and received full and final payment and if the petitioner had filed application for withdrawal of VRS application on 27.12.2010, then why he received full and final payment and the same was not explained by the petitioner. In the earlier writ petition, the petitioner had filed application for withdrawal of the writ petition citing reason that as the writ petition is pending, his VRS application would not be decided by the respondent authorities, whereas the last date for submitting VRS application is 31.12.2010, but the petitioner nowhere mentioned that he filed application for withdrawal of his VRS application on 27.12.2010. The petitioner very cleverly filed application dated 10.03.2011, which is for return of cheque of his final payment, whereas as per Annexure-R/4, the petitioner has received full and final payment on 09.03.2011 itself, as such it is hard to believe that when the petitioner received full and final payment, then as to why on the very next day i.e. on 10.03.2011, he filed an application for return of his cheque in his office. This application also bears seal of jawak lipik. It is clear from the documents filed by the respondents that the petitioner had filed application for voluntary retirement and for this purpose, he withdrew his previous writ petition and when his retirement was accepted, he received full and final payment but after that he wanted to withdraw his VRS application. The petitioner was not in a position to explain this fact that if he had filed application (Annexure-P/14) on 27.12.2010 for withdrawl of VRS application, then why he filed application for urgent hearing before this Court on the same day with affidavit for withdrawal of his earlier writ petition vide Annexure-R/3) and even the reason was cited that as the writ petition is pending, the respondents would not allow his VRS application and the last for submitting the same is 31.12.2010, as such it is clear from all documents that the petitioner has not come this Court with clean hands.

In view of the foregoing discussions and for the fact that the petitioner received full and final payment after his VRS application was allowed by the Department, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition.

The writ petition being without any merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly.