K S RAVINDRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the appellant opted out for Ext.P1, a scheme formulated for taking voluntary retirement by the employees of the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2 is an application which came to be submitted by the appellant seeking such benefit under Ext.P1. Ext.P3 is the acceptance of the application of the appellant for voluntary retirement. Till receipt of Ext.P3, there was no clarification of any sort made by the appellant. It is not in dispute that prior to the introduction of voluntary retirement scheme, he was deputed on foreign service. It is also not in dispute that at the time of deputation, an undertaking in the form of a bond came to be accepted by the appellant as per Ext.P5.

(3.) IN that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was justified in saying that having chosen to accept Ext.P3 and having taken the benefit of acceptance of voluntary retirement at Ext.P3 it was not open to the appellant to challenge the same. Even otherwise, on reading Sec. 17A (6) of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 and also Rule 32 of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Foreign Service Rules, 1975, apart from the scheme of voluntary retirement, in a Notification dated Ist January 2004 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) (Insurance Division, we note that Eligibility Clause 3 (3) of the scheme prescribes a condition which prohibits employees on deputation or posted abroad to submit voluntary retirement application. To opt out for voluntary retirement, this Clause 3 (3) of the Scheme includes people who had already worked abroad on deputation. Otherwise, there was no reason why such clause would be introduced in the scheme. When the benefit of deputation abroad is taken, there is justification on the part of the employer to expect the employee to serve the Company or institution with the knowledge acquired by him outside the country. This is the reason why such bonds are insisted. If he had not completed the term of three years of service, after returning home only the conditions of bond would apply. Therefore, if at all, there was clarification needed it was for the appellant to seek clarification at the relevant time. It is too late in the day now after 8 years to contend that he should have been given an opportunity of being heard before accepting the voluntary retirement application. We do not find any good ground to differ from the opinion of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.