(1.) THE appellant, a retired employee of the respondents 2 to 4/Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC for short) has filed these writ proceedings, seeking to count his past service with the Navy and the Madras Port Trust for gratuity purposes. His case is that he joined as Wireless Telegraphist in Indian Navy on 16.10.1967 and after completion of ten years of service, he was discharged from service on 31.10.1977. THEreafter, he joined the service of Madras Port Trust as Mazdoor on 17.2.1978 and later on, he was re-designated as Assistant/Technician. While in the service of the Madras Port Trust, the appellant has applied to the ONGC, through proper channel. Upon his appointment in the ONGC, he resigned his services in the Madras Port Trust on 12.1.1984 and joined the services of ONGC on 16.1.1984 as Junior Engineer. Gradually, he rose upto the level of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Electrical). While so, the ONGC has promulgated a scheme for voluntary retirement by an order dated 31.8.2001 in Office Order No.30/2001. THE appellant has opted for this scheme and in fact, retired as such on 30.9.2003. However, during the pendency of his application for voluntary retirement, the appellant has requested the respondents 2 to 4/ONGC to take into count his earlier service in the Navy from 16.10.1967 to 31.10.1977 and his service in the Madras Port Trust from 17.2.1978 to 12.2.1984 for the purpose of calculating the gratuity. Considering his request, the ONGC, by its communication dated 28.2.2002 has informed the appellant his past services in Madras Port Trust can be considered for counting for the purpose of gratuity only, provided the amount is transferred to ONGC along with 12% interest per annum. He has also been informed, under the said communication that he is not entitled to get any consideration for the service rendered by him in the Indian Navy since he has not joined directly in ONGC from Indian Navy. This communication of the appellant dated 28.2.2002 was challenged by the appellant by filing W.P.No.11734 of 2002 and a learned single Judge of this Court, by the order dated 24.7.2002, has directed the appellant to make his representation before the second respondent within three weeks and the second respondent was directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the appellant on merits and in accordance with law with an opportunity for the appellant to be heard within four weeks thereafter.
(2.) THEREAFTER, the appellant submitted his representation on 3.9.2002 and contending that even though personal hearing took place on 28.10.2002, and he also submitted his clarifications to certain queries raised by the ONGC, by letter dated 4.11.2002, his representation was not disposed of by the ONGC officials, the appellant filed Contempt Petition No.630 of 2003 before this Court, praying to punish the second respondents for disobeying the order of the Court. But, since, during the pendency of this contempt petition, the present impugned order came to be passed, the said contempt petition was closed by this Court, the appellant has initiated the present writ proceedings. Since a learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed his prayer, the appellant has come forward to file this writ appeal.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme promulgated by the respondents/ONGC assured gratuity as per ONGC Death, Retirement and Terminal Gratuity Rules, 1995 ('Rules', in short). THE learned counsel would further argue that Rule 7 of the said Rules provides transfer of gratuity and applying the said provision of law, the respondents 2 to 4 should have ordered to take into count the services rendered by the appellant in Indian Navy and the Madras Port Trust for gratuity purposes.