Vinod Kumar vs Punjab State Cooperative Handloom Federation Ltd. and Others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

C.M. No. 4915 of 2013:

For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit, order dated 19.3.2013, dismissing the writ petition in default, is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main case is taken on Board.

Main Case:

The Government of Punjab introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short, "the VRS Scheme") for the employees of Public Sector Undertakings/Apex Cooperative Institutions. The relevant features of the said scheme read thus:-

Procedure:

(i) An eligible employee may submit request opting for Voluntary Retirement under the scheme to the Competent Authority through proper channel in a prescribed proforma (Annexure-A), which shall be available in the PSU.

(ii) The Competent Authority may after considering the application and after giving an opportunity to the applicant of being heard, pass a speaking order within a period of 3 months, either accepting or rejecting the request.

(iii) In case the Competent Authority fails to pass an order rejecting the request by the due date as given at sub para (ii) above, the request would be deemed to have been accepted and the employee would be retired.

General Conditions:

(i) to (iv) xxxxxx

(v) No employee shall be allowed to withdraw the request made for voluntary retirement under the scheme after it has been accepted by the Competent Authority.

A perusal of above would clearly show that in case an eligible employee submits his request opting for voluntary retirement, the Competent Authority after considering the application made, has to pass a speaking order within a period of three months either accepting or rejecting the request. It is further mentioned that in case the Competent Authority does not pass an order rejecting the request within three months, then the request would be deemed to have been accepted. It is further made clear in the VRS that no employee shall be allowed to withdraw the request made for voluntary retirement under the scheme after it has been accepted by the Competent Authority.

The said scheme was adopted by the Punjab State Cooperative Handloom Federation Limited (in short, "the Weavco"). The petitioner who was also an employee of the respondent-Federation, submitted his application for voluntary retirement, which was accepted vide endorsement No. Weavco/Admn/2006-07/2371-2378 dated 28.9.2006 strictly in accordance with law under the provisions of the VRS Scheme and he was permitted to retire under the aforesaid scheme w.e.f. 29.9.2006. The entire benefits under the aforesaid scheme were given to him after acceptance of his application. Undisputedly, an amount of Rs. 3,23,638/- was released to the petitioner vide cheque No. 962118 dated 29.11.2006 after deducting TDS and the same was got encashed by the petitioner on 5.12.2006.

The petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.9.2011 (Annexure P-5) for taking him back in service, submitting that he had applied for VRS without understanding the nature of the Scheme and the benefits available under the scheme, under the pressure and threat of the management. In his representation, petitioner further made a reference to the judgment of this Court passed in C.W.P. No. 255 of 2006 titled as Smt. Pavittar Kaur & another v. State of Punjab & others decided on 7.7.2010 and other writ petitions, wherein a challenge was made to the aforesaid VRS Scheme which was accepted, on the ground that before accepting the options submitted by the employees, no criteria was laid down. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 failed to decide the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 23913 of 2011 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2011 with a direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the representation dated 12.9.2011 of the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order dated 21.12.2011. Respondent No. 1 declined the prayer of the petitioner vide order dated 9.3.2012 in the following manner:-

Shri Vinod Kumar submitted representation dated 12.9.2011 for taking back him in service which was received in this office on 16.9.2011. I have gone through the orders passed by the Hon''ble High Court in C.W.P. No. 255 of 2006, orders in LPA No. 906 of 2010 and orders in C.W.P. No. 16035 of 2010. The record of Shri Vinod Kumar was also thoroughly checked. As per VRS under which request of Shri Vinod Kumar was accepted regarding voluntary retirement, Shri Vinod Kumar did not make any request for withdrawal of his application seeking voluntary retirement. After more than five years months, he submitted application dated 12.9.2011 which was received in the office on 16.9.2011. There is no provision under the VRS to allow the application seeking withdrawal from voluntary retirement, once the same is accepted by the competent authority. Under the Scheme, a person who has been allowed to retire, he cannot be taken back in service. The said retiree cannot claim to join the organization in future after he has received full and final settlement under VRS. The post which Shri Vinod Kumar was occupying stands abolished as per the VRS.

The case of Shri Vinod Kumar is totally different from the employees who filed above cases in the Hon''ble High Court. The employees in the said cases moved application for voluntary retirement under VRS. During pendency of their applications with the competent authority, they withdrew their applications. The time of scheme lapsed and thereafter the management unilaterally retired 41 senior most employees by giving them voluntary retirement and the amounts of Voluntary Retirement stood deposited in the bank accounts of the respective employees. 27 junior most employees were however retained by the management by pick and choose policy. In view of the above position, the Hon''ble High Court passed orders against the management of Sugarfed. No pick and chose policy was adopted by Weavco. The application for retirement under VRS of Shri Vinod Kumar was accepted by the competent authority. He was given entire benefits under VRS. He encashed the entire benefits under the Scheme. The post of Assistant Salesman which Shri Vinod Kumar was occupying, stood abolished as per the VRS and no junior was retained who applied for voluntary retirement under the Scheme. After a lapse of more than five years, Shri Vinod Kumar has claimed reinstatement which cannot be allowed to him. Accordingly, the representation of Shri Vinod Kumar dated 12.9.2011 stands disposed off.

Still not satisfied, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition, challenging the aforesaid order dated 9.3.2012 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No. 1, submitting that the same is illegal and against the judgments of this Court passed in CWP No. 255 of 2006, in LPA No. 906 of 2010 and in C.W.P. No. 16035 of 2010.

The writ petition was contested by respondent No. 1 by filing written statement, submitting that the petitioner had made his request for VRS Scheme specifically mentioning that he has carefully read and understood the contents of the VRS Scheme and had specifically mentioned that he accepts the terms and conditions of the Scheme. Accordingly, the request of the petitioner was accepted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme and he was relieved from service on 29.9.2006. It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that all the benefits accruing under the said scheme were paid to the petitioner vide cheque dated 29.11.2006, which was enchased by him and thus, after accepting the payments/benefits under the Scheme, the petitioner cannot be permitted to be taken back in service. Moreover, the post which the petitioner was occupying has been abolished.

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the VRS Scheme of the Punjab Government was adopted and implemented by the various cooperative federations/corporations in the State of Punjab including the Punjab State Cooperative Sugar Mill Limited (in short, "the Sugarfed") and this Court vide judgment dated 7.7.2010 in C.W.P. No. 255 of 2010 had allowed the writ petitions primarily on the ground that before accepting the options submitted by the employees for voluntary retirement, no criteria was laid down. It is the further argument of counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order (Annexure P-9), respondent No. 1 has failed to consider the aforesaid judgments and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the averments made in the writ petition and have also perused the judgments and documents produced before this Court.

I am of the opinion that the writ petition is without any merit. A perusal of various features of the Scheme, as noticed above, would show that there is no provision under the VRS Scheme to allow an application seeking withdrawal from the VRS Scheme once the same has been accepted by the competent authority. Under the Scheme, a person who has been allowed to retired cannot be taken back in service. Moreover, it is the case of respondent No. 1 that the post which was occupied by the petitioner stands abolished. It may also be noticed that the petitioner did not make any request for withdrawal of his application seeking voluntary retirement and had submitted the application after a lapse of five years after acceptance of the same.

The case of the petitioner is totally different from the employees who had filed C.W.P. No. 255 of 2006 before this Court, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner herein. The employees in the said case withdrew their applications for voluntary retirement during the pendency of their resignations before the competent authority. The time of the scheme elapsed and thereafter, the management unilaterally retired 41 senior most employees by giving them voluntary retirement after retaining 27 juniormost employees, adopting a pick and choose policy and in view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court passed orders against the management of the Sugarfed, whereas in the instant case, no pick and choose policy has been adopted by the Weavco. The application of the petitioner has been accepted by the competent authority, giving him entire service benefits, which have been duly encashed by him and the post of Salesman which was occupied by the petitioner stood abolished. No junior to the petitioner has been retained who had applied voluntary retirement under the VRS Scheme.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner who is claiming his reinstatement after lapse of more than five years which cannot be allowed.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab and Sind Bank and Another Vs. S. Ranveer Singh Bawa and Another, has authoritatively laid down that an optee after accepting the payments/benefits under the VRS Scheme cannot be permitted to withdraw. Moreover, principles of estoppel applies to the case in hand, as the petitioner has never objected to the payments and has appropriated the amounts in his favour.

No other point has been argued.