Dismissed

Managing Director, Odisha State Financial Corporation v. Sukanta Kumar Sarangi

Orissa HC9 Sept 2020WA/187/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging an order that allowed an employee to continue service despite his voluntary retirement scheme acceptance. The bench held that the single judge rightly applied Supreme Court precedent and deferred to the single judge's reasoning under the VRS scheme terms.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; single judge's order allowing the petition to continue in service affirmed.

Managing Director, Odisha State Financial… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.A. No. 187 of 2020

¶2

09.09.2020 This matter is taken up through video

¶3

conferencing.

¶4

Heard Mr.R.K.Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel

¶5

for the appellant.

¶6

The appellant in this writ appeal assails the judgment dated 14.2.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 296 of 2006.

¶7

¶8

On perusal of the impugned order it appears that the respondent who was petitioner in the writ petition has filed W.P.(C) No. 296 of 2006 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to allow him to continue in service. The opposite party-respondent joined in the service of Orissa State Financial Corporation as a Collection Assistant on 1.4.1986. While continuing as such, he was promoted to the post of Assistant in the year 1998. While continuing as such the Corporation floated the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short „VRS‟) on 13.9.2005. Pursuant to such scheme, the respondent applied to go under VRS by filing application on 30.9.2005.

¶9

However before any action taken on the application of the respondent to go under VRS scheme he has filed an application for withdrawal of the VRS application on 14.10.2005 after visualizing that he has no source of livelihood after consulting with the family members. He has legitimately expected that his withdrawal application shall be considered by the authority as till that date acceptance of his VRS application has not been communicated to him and no action has been taken on his

¶10

¶11

application for VRS. He was allowed to work till 31.10.2005 and thereafter he was not allowed to work. The learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bank of India and others Vrs. O.P. Swarnakar and others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 721 allowed the writ petition.

¶12

Mr.R.K.Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge went wrong in law in putting the burden of proof of non-service on the OSFC. When it was the positive case of the writ petitioner that his withdrawal proposal was communicated to the OSFC, it was incumbent upon the writ petitioner to prove the service of the same on OSFC particularly before the date of acceptance on 24.10.2005. He further submits that by the date the decision to accept voluntary retirement was taken by OSFC, there was no material to prove that OSFC was in possession of, or at least had the knowledge about the alleged withdrawal proposal dated 14.10.2005. He draws attention of the CourtAnnexure2 is the copy of the VRS scheme. Clause 6.1 of the scheme is quoted below for ready reference;-

¶13

“6.1 Application of Voluntary Retirement cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance is communicating to the employee concerned.”

¶14

In view of the above clause the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶15

Clause 3.3 of the scheme is quoted below for ready reference:-

¶16

“3.3 The decision of the Managing Director

¶17

¶18

regarding the acceptance/rejection of the V.R. application shall be communicated to the employee within 30 (thirty) days of submission of the application.”

¶19

In view of above clause since rejection of his application was not communicated he was sure that his application for withdrawal was accepted. However subsequently it was communicated that his application for VRS was allowed on 24.10.2005. Considering all the above fact since the learned Single Judge has passed a reasoned order and therein no illegality or error apparent on the face of the same by applying the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.Radhakrishnan and others reported in A.I.R. 1964 SC 477 , we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶20

Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶21

……………… S.Panda,J.

¶22

…..……………… K.R.Mohapatra, J

Managing Director, Odisha State Financial Corporation v. Sukanta Kumar Sarangi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director, Odisha State Financial Corporation v. Sukanta Kumar Sarangi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

O.S.F.C. Vs State

Manu Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Akura Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Rasmita Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Pravat Gouda Vs State of Odisha

State of Odisha Vs Purnananda Mohanty