UMESH CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 6.2.2013, the following order was passed:-

(2.) RESPONDENT No.3 has complied with the order and has filed the documents in question. In the morning, counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment. This request was denied in view of the fact that the matter was heard on 6.2.2013 and on the limited issue as to whether VRS benefits were taken unconditionally or conditionally, the matter was listed today. On being unsuccessful in taking the adjournment, counsel requested for a pass over and said that he would argue the matter. After pass over the matter has come at 2.45 P.M., however, counsel for the petitioner again seeks an adjournment. In my opinion, strategies which are devised to unnecessarily delay the cases cannot be countenanced by the Court. I have therefore declined the request for adjournment and proceeded to hear the counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. I have also perused the record.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in the case of A.K.Bindal VS. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 163 has set out the parameters with respect to petitions wherein employees who have taken VRS again approach the Court to seek certain service benefits. Relevant para of this judgment in this regard is para 34 and the same reads as under:-