K.K.MATHUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioners on the main writ petition itself because it is contended that petitioners did not give any consent for withdrawal of the writ petition on 13.2.2013.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that petitioners were employees of respondent No.2/Indian Tourism Development Corporation. They were posted at hotel Ranjit which was run by the respondent No.2. Under a scheme of disinvestment, respondent No.3 was disinvested by the Government and the same was taken over by the private investors including respondent No.3 -Hotel Ranjit. This took place around the year 2002. Petitioners therefore became the employees of the private management which took over the respondent No.3 -hotel. Respondent No.3 thereafter took out a Voluntary Retirement Scheme and petitioners accepted amounts under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2002 and thereafter ceased to be employees of the respondent No.3. This writ petition has been thereafter filed in the year 2006 claiming the following reliefs: -

(3.) SURELY , Union of India cannot be asked to give any employment to the petitioners because no law is cited and nor does any law exists that if persons who were employees of autonomous organizations which were disinvested and such persons received monetary benefits under the VRS scheme from the private employer, thereafter, merely where such employees claim that they are in financial difficulty, Union of India must give them employment.