BISRAM SINGH VERMA Vs. BALMER LAWRIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Bishram Singh Verma sought voluntary retirement on 22nd December, 1992. This application of the Petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Respondent on 18th January, 1994. In the order of acceptance which was communicated to the Petitioner inter alia it was stated that "superannuation benefits will be applicable to you from the date of notional retirement viz. 31st March, 1995". In furtherance to this letter the Petitioner was relieved from his duties which was accepted by him. The Petitioner in normal course would have retired on 1st April, 1995. Prior thereto the Petitioner moved an application to the Respondents for grant of retirement benefits including pension to the Petitioner. This letter was sent by the Petitioner to the Respondents on 23rd December, 1994. Vide letter dated 22nd February, 1995 this request of the Petitioner was declined and the letter dated 18th January, 1994 was clarified by the Respondents. It will be useful to refer to the contents of this letter which have been annexed to the Writ Petition as Annexure P-3.

(2.) The challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the legality and correctness of this letter. The contention raised is that keeping in view the voluntary retirement scheme which was made effective by the Respondents on 8th October, 1992 read in conjunction with the provisions of the Superannuation Scheme started by the Respondents on 1st January, 1988 the Petitioner would be entitled to get the pensionary benefits. It is further averred that the petitioner will be entitled to get the benefits even on the equitable principles of estoppel. Upon notice the Respondents have opposed the prayer and they have taken preliminary objection in regard to maintainability, territorial jurisdiction of this Court as well as contested the case on merits stating that the Petitioner does not satisfy with the requirements of the relevant rules. As such the petitioner cannot get any pension.

(3.) The first preliminary objection raised in this writ petition is that the Respondent Company is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it is not a State within the meaning and ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Brigadier B.B. Chadha Vs. Balmer Lawris & Co. Ltd. and Ors., 1989 Labour Industrial Cases (NOC) 50 (Allahabad) where the Respondent Company was held to be a State the Petition is not pressed.