T GOVINDASEETHARAM Vs. CHAIRMAN CHENNAI PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to memo dated 31.12.2001 bearing reference No.Estt(R)/2/18282/2001/A issued by the respondent and quash the same and permit the petitioner to retire in terms of the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1992, as contained in the Circular dated 8.3.2001 as revived and pass such further orders.

(2.) Heard Mr.R.Thogappian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of counsel on either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(3.) The petitioner is working in the Accounts Department of the respondent Port Trust and his claim for promotion was not considered and ignored and therefore he has challenged his non promotion by filing W.P.No: 1667 of 1998 which has since been dismissed as withdrawn. On 8.3.2001, the respondent revived the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced during the year 1992. According to the scheme all the officers in Class I, II and employees and workers in Class III and IV who have completed ten years of service or who have completed forty years of age are eligible to apply under the scheme. Such an application should be submitted on or before 31.3.2001 and the individual employee on acceptance has to retire on 30th June 2001. The petitioner submitted his application on 30th March 2001 which was kept pending. The petitioner reminded the respondent by letter dated 4.6.2001. On that, the respondent passed the impugned order on 12.7.2001, after the date fixed for retirement viz, 30.6.2001. By memo dated 12.7.2001, the respondent rejected the petitioner's request to retire under Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1992 from the service of the respondent-Port rust without assigning any reason as prescribed under Part III(1) (iii) of the said Scheme. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred W.P.No: 13724 of 2001. This court set aside the orders of rejection and directed the respondent to reconsider and pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with the scheme while assigning reasons within a period of four weeks. It is pointed out that only justification suggested being that the petitioner's writ petition No.1667 of 1998 is pending. Once again by the impugned memo the request of the petitioner has been rejected. The order of rejection reads thus:-