JAI BHAGWAN Vs. PEC LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks directions to the respondent/PECL to restore the medical facilities to him in terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short 'VRS'). The present case has a chequered history. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was working on the post of Office Manager in the respondent/PECL since the year 1992. On 7.7.2000, the petitioner submitted his resignation to the respondent/PECL. As per the petitioner, the respondent/PECL had refused to accept his resignation. However, the averments made in the petition reveals that on 4.10.2000, while still in the service of the respondent/PECL, the petitioner had joined the Excise and Taxation Department, Government of Haryana, as a Taxation Inspector, under the name, J.B. Parashar. On 3.1.2001, the respondent/PECL had introduced VRS for its employees and the petitioner applied under the said Scheme on 15.1.2001. On 17.1.2001, the petitioner was relieved from the service of the respondent/PECL.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that all the employees, who were granted VRS, were entitled to medical facilities for self and spouse under the Scheme, but on 26.2.2002, the respondent/PECL had abruptly stopped extending the benefit of medical facilities to him, and the same was duly communicated by the respondent/PECL vide letter dated 1.4.2002, stating inter alia that as per the information received from the Haryana Government, the petitioner had taken employment as Taxation Inspector in the office of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana in October, 2000 when he was still in the employment of the respondent/PECL and had remained so till January, 2001, thereby illegally getting employed with two different Government organizations in the same period.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in this Court, registered as W.P. (C) 4646/2003. As none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 27.8.2003, the aforesaid petition came to be dismissed. While passing the order dated 27.8.2003, the Court did not grant any liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Admittedly, in all these years, the petitioner did not take any steps to have the aforesaid petition restored to its original position by filing an application. As a result, the said order has attained finality.