S R PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner is working as a cost accounts officer with the second respondent-board. Having been appointed in the year 1986, he has to his credit nearly eight years of service. He appears to have applied to the board seeking voluntary retirement from service, which request upon consideration was turned down by the board by its memo dated 5th of june, 1995. It was pointed out that the petitioner was not entitled to apply for voluntary retirement as he was not eligible to do so in terms of the eligibility clause of the voluntary retirement scheme, 1994, issued under circular dated 8th august, 1994. It is useful to extract clause (4) of the said scheme which prescribes the conditions of. Eligibility fpr the board employees seeking voluntary retirement: 4. Eligibility: 1. Any regular employee in the non-inter changeable cadre of the marketing directorate who has completed minimum 10 years of service in the board or completed 55 years of age shall be eligible to seek voluntary retirement under the coffee board voluntary retirement scheme, 1994. Such applications shall be made in writing through proper channel to the competent authority.

(2.) persons appointed on training to the posts in the non-inter changeabl ecadre of the marketing directorate and subsequently absorbed in the regular grade in continuation of the training are also eligible for this benefit.

(3.) the scheme is applicable to the non-inter changeable staff of the marketing directors whose pay and allowances met wholly or partially from the pool fund. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner satisfies none of the two requirements prescribed by the aforementioned provision of the scheme, inasmuch as he has neither put in 10 years of service in the board nor has he completed 55 years of age. All the same aggrieved by the rejection of his request, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the memo issued to him and for a mandamus directing the respondents to amend the eligibility clause contained in para 4 of the scheme so as to fix the qualifying age at 40 years instead of 55 years as stipulated. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.