Disposed

Rana Ranjit Singh v. Hindustan Steel Work

Orissa HC1 May 2019WP(C)/964/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding rejection of a voluntary retirement application, the Court directed the opposite party to reconsider the petitioner's claim, extending the benefit date to the date of the original application but providing for adjustment of any salary received during the interim period.

What did the court decide?

Directed opposite parties to reconsider voluntary retirement application with effect from 30.10.2000 and adjust emoluments received between 30.10.2000 and 31.12.2002.

Rana Ranjit Singh Vs Hindustan Steel Work — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 964 of 2003

¶2

01.05.2019 Heard Mr. B. Maharana, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶3

Though Mr. D. Das, learned counsel entered appearance for opposite party no.1, he is not present when the matter is called and, as such, no counter affidavit has also been filed till date. Since it is a matter of the year 2003, this Court is not inclined to grant any further adjournment to the counsel for opposite party no.1 to file counter affidavit and proceeded to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission on the basis of the pleadings available and applying the principles of doctrine of non-traverse.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to accept the voluntary retirement application dated 25.08.2000 w.e.f. 30.10.2000 instead of 31.12.2002 with all consequential benefits under the voluntary retirement scheme by treating his age of superannuation as 60 years.

¶5

Mr. B. Maharana, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner has submitted his application on 25.08.2000 to avail the voluntary retirement benefit w.e.f. 30.10.2000, the same was rejected and no communication has been made to the petitioner to that extent. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing OJC

¶6

¶7

No.3346 of 2001 and after due adjudication, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.01.2002 disposed of the said writ application directing the authority for consideration for grant of voluntary retirement in terms of voluntary retirement scheme floated vide circular dated 10.08.2000 in Annexure-1 to the said writ application. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 preferred AHO No. 30 of 2002 and this Court vide order dated 06.11.2002 disposed of the said application by setting aside the direction part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and observed that the opposite parties shall consider the voluntary retirement application on its own merit without being influenced by the circular in Annexure-3 of the said application. Consequence thereof vide order dated 20.12.2002, the voluntary retirement application submitted by the petitioner on 25.08.2000 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.10.2000 was accepted w.e.f. 31.12.2002 and upon acceptance of voluntary retirement, released the petitioner w.e.f. 31.12.2002 and the petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia for the balance one month of service left before the normal date of retirement which was 31.01.2003. It is contended that for no fault of the petitioner, if subsequently by order dated 30.12.2002 the voluntary retirement application was accepted, the same prejudice to the petitioner because of reason that he has applied for voluntary retirement w.e.f.

¶8

¶9

30.10.2000. Therefore, he should be entitled to voluntary retirement benefit under the voluntary retirement scheme considering the his retirement age as 60 years. The same having not been done, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application.

¶10

Opposite party no.1 appeared through their counsel but neither filed counter affidavit nor present at the time of hearing.

¶11

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that opposite party no.1 floated a scheme by issuing circular inviting applications for voluntary retirement on10.08.2000. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his application requesting to accept his voluntary retirement application w.e.f. 30.10.2000. Since no action has been taken by the authority, he approached this Court by filing OJC No.3346 of 2001 and on being noticed, opposite parties appeared and filed counter affidavit wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme on 25.08.2000 seeking release from the service of the company w.e.f. 31.10.2000. It has been also disclosed that the Group General Manager of the company after considering the application of the petitioner recommended his case for acceptance of voluntary retirement from 31.12.2000 in view of the

¶12

¶13

urgency of some work assigned to the petitioner and for his requirement at the unit and thereafter due intervening administrative reasons arising out of the roll back in the age of the employees from 60 years to 58 years, the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was rejected along with many other employees of the company seeking voluntary retirement beyond 30.11.2000 pursuant to the circular dated 14.12.2000. But fact remains, such letter has not been communicated to the petitioner and for the first time the same was disclosed in the counter affidavit. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge while adjudicating the same directed in paragraph-6 of the said writ application to the following effect:

¶14

“6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the decision referred to above, I am of the view that the management of the opposite party-company has not acted fairly in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Accordingly, the rejection of the case of the petitioner for voluntary retirement is illegal and accordingly opposite parties are directed to allow the petitioner to go on voluntary retirement in terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated vide circular dated 10.08.2000 (Annexure-1).”

¶15

The opposite parties being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, preferred AHO No.30 of 2002 and after due adjudication the Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order:

¶16

“7. We, therefore, allow this appeal. While we sustain the quashing of the order of the appellants rejecting the request of the

¶17

¶18

respondent herein to retire under voluntary retirement scheme, we set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge to the appellants to allow the respondent to go on voluntary retirement in terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, Annexure-1. Instead, we direct the appellants to reconsider the claim of the respondent to retire under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, Annexure-1 afresh in the light of the what we have stated above, uninfluenced by what is contained in Annexure-3 Circular. The appellants are directed to take an expeditious decision on the request of the respondent. We make no order as to costs.”

¶19

The Division Bench of this Court in AHO No.30 of 2012 only directed for reconsideration of the application filed by the petitioner afresh as per the voluntary retirement scheme in Annexure-1 without being influenced by the circular dated 14.12.2000 in Annexure-3 to the said application. In compliance of the said order, the authority passed on 30.12.2002 in Annexure-6 on reconsideration of his application dated 25.08.2000 and permitted the petitioner to retire from service and released him w.e.f. 31.12.2002 by accepting his voluntary retirement application and, as such, it is contended that the petitioner is only entitled to ex-gratia for the balance one month of service left before the normal date of retirement which was 31.01.2003.

¶20

Mr. B. Maharana, learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically contended that for laches on the part of the petitioner, since the benefit has not been

¶21

¶22

extended to the petitioner, he approached this Court. It is contended that because of roll back, the scheme evolved by the authority and if the petitioner has filed application on 25.08.2000 seeking retirement w.e.f.30.10.2000, the same could not have been done w.e.f. 31.12.2002, as has been done in the present case in Annexure-6, rather the same should have been given from the date the petitioner submitted application seeking voluntary retirement, i.e., 30.10.2000 by accepting his application.

¶23

In view of such position, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for grant of voluntary retirement benefit is to be reconsidered by rolling back his service w.e.f. 30.10.2000 instead of 31.12.2002 by accepting his application dated 25.08.2000. If any delay has been caused at the level of the authority concerned in considering the application that itself is not a ground to extend the benefit as claimed by the petitioner w.e.f. 30.10.2000. Accordingly, this Court directs the opposite parties to reconsider the case of the petitioner once again with regard to grant of voluntary retirement benefit w.e.f. 30.10.2000 instead of 31.12.2002 by adjusting the amount already received by him during the period from 31.10.2000 to 31.12.2002. Needless to say that for the period the petitioner rendering service and extended with the benefits, the same should also

¶24

¶25

be calculated and the emoluments has to be determined by the authority in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶26

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶27

Ashok

¶28

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

Rana Ranjit Singh v. Hindustan Steel Work

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rana Ranjit Singh v. Hindustan Steel Work

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama Vs Grid Corpn.

Pratima Rani Jena Vs State

Rajendra Ku.Behera Vs Union of India

Chhayakanta Sarangi Vs State

Banchanidhi Swain Vs Fakir C.Bairiganjana

Rajkishore Panigrahi Vs State