ASHOK SARIN Vs. OIL INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, working at the time of filing of the writ petition as a Deputy Chief Geophysicist at Duliajan, Assam with the respondent No. 1 Oil India Limited (hereinafter referred to as OIL), filed this petition claiming the following reliefs:

(2.) NOTICE of the writ petition as well as application for stay of domestic inquiry was issued. On 21st August, 1997 the counsel for the petitioner informed this Court that the petitioner was not interested in continuing with his service with the respondent OIL and interested only in acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement. In the circumstances the counsel for the respondent OIL stated that they would fill up the post on which the petitioner was working. On 29th October, 2002 the counsel for the respondent OIL informed this Court that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner has been concluded and the matter was required to be considered by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, on 21st November, 2002 the counsel for the respondent OIL informed that the disciplinary authority has tentatively decided to dismiss the petitioner from the service and sought directions for payment of provident fund and gratuity dues of the petitioner. This Court clarified that the pendency of the writ petition would not stand in the way of the respondent OIL paying provident fund and gratuity to the petitioner and payment was directed to be made within ten days. Thereafter the writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 5th December, 2008 and was restored on 2nd February, 2009. The writ petition was again dismissed for non prosecution on 8th July, 2009 and the petitioner again applied for restoration vide CM. No. 8589/2009 of which notice was ordered to be issued. The counsel for the respondent OIL has appeared. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original position.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner admits that as per the rule/scheme for Voluntary Retirement, the petitioner could not retire by his unilateral act and his application for voluntary retirement was required to be accepted by the respondent OIL. Attention is invited to the letter dated 11th October, 1994 of the respondent OIL intimating to the petitioner that his request for voluntary retirement has not been agreed to. The counsel for the petitioner contends that no reasons whatsoever have been given for refusing voluntary retirement. It is also contended that the respondent OIL being a "State" ought to have acted fairly in the matter of accepting or refusing Voluntary Retirement to the petitioner and cannot act whimsically, particularly when the petitioner was eligible for the same. It is further contended that the petitioner at the contemporaneous time was posted at Assam and was urgently required to be in Delhi with his family and had requested the respondent OIL to either transfer him to Delhi or to grant him leave or to give him voluntary retirement. Reliance in this regard is placed on Manjushree Pathak v. Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. : (2000) 7 SCC 390.