ASHOK KUMAR SHRIMALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner on 30th December, 1982 joined the employment of Indian Investment Centre (IIC) as a Junior Technical Officer and was in the year 2005 working as the Assistant Advisor in the said IIC. IIC was set up in the year 1960 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, for promotion of foreign investment in India and establishment of joint ventures, technical collaboration and third country ventures between Indian and foreign entrepreneurs. THE said Society was fully owned and controlled by the Department of Economic Affairs of the Ministry of Finance of the Government of India. In or around the year 2004, it was felt that IIC had not served the purpose for which it was set up and that the functions for which it was set up were already being performed by other agencies of the Government. As such, a proposal was mooted for closure of IIC and a note for approval of the Cabinet was prepared in this regard. THE said note also considered the staff related matters consequent to closure of IIC and recorded that the question of re-deployment of the surplus IIC staff in the Government Ministries was considered, but was not found possible under the existing Rules. As such, Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) of the said staff of IIC was proposed. THE approval of the Cabinet was sought for the said VRS being made available to the employees of IIC and for dissolution of IIC.

(2.) THE Cabinet Committee in its meeting held on 27th October, 2004 approved the said proposal but also directed that the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA) "may" utilize the services of some of the personnel, building and equipment of IIC for their activities.

(3.) THE matter appears to have been partly argued before this Court on 3 rd April, 2008 when the petitioner appears to have argued discrimination also. Accordingly, an additional affidavit was permitted to be filed. THE petitioner in the said additional affidavit has given names of 10 employees of IIC who after leaving IIC were stated to be working in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. THE respondents have filed a reply to the said affidavit in which it is categorically stated that none of the ex-employees of IIC were re-employed on permanent basis and the persons named were engaged only contractually and not on the basis of being ex-employees of IIC.