Writ petitions filed by former employees who exercised their VRS option seeking re-engagement and regularization after their juniors were regularized. The court held that accepting VRS bars re-engagement claims and directed parties to appropriate forums.
Petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach appropriate forum if cause of action survives.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.C. NO.3524 of 2004
6 12.03.2019
Heard Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners, who have taken VRS, filed this writ petition seeking for direction to the opposite parties to re-engage them and also regularize their services as juniors to them have been regularized.
Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners states that under a compelling circumstances, the petitioners have exercised their option for VRS and after VRS accepted they have been disengaged from service and subsequently they came to know that the services of juniors to them have been regularized. It is further contended that similarly situated persons had approached the industrial forum and the benefit of continuance of service has been granted to those persons. Therefore, they approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking for reengagement and regularization of their services.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that once the right of VRS has been exercised by the petitioners and the same having been accepted and acted upon, subsequently the question of re-engagement/reinstatement in service does not arise.
Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that admittedly the petitioners have exercised their option for VRS and the same has been
accepted and they have also been extended the VRS benefit. Having availed the VRS benefit, subsequently they have turned around and claimed that since the services of the juniors to them have been regularized, they have filed this writ petition seeking for direction to reengage them and regularize their services. Once the VRS is accepted, question of re-engagement does not arise. The further contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that similarly situated persons had approached the industrial forum and they have been extended the benefit of re-engagement and regularization of services, but the same has not been placed on records for consideration. If the said benefit has been granted to the juniors to the petitioners, it is open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum instead of pursuing the matter before this Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum ventilating their grievances, if any cause of action survives.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
…..………………………… Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
Alok
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee who has voluntarily retired and been extended the VRS benefit can seek re-engagement and regularization after the services of their juniors were regularized.
Whether the reliance on benefit granted to similarly situated juniors equitably disentitled the petitioner from re-engagement after voluntary retirement.
Petitioners
Opposite Parties
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
