JAGDISH CHANDRA NIGAM Vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the request of the parties that in several other writ petitions, which were filed by the employees of Scooters India Ltd., more or less same question of law is involved as in the Special Appeal No. 48 (S/B) of 1997, although the writ petitions are cognizable by Hon'ble the single Judge but a Division Bench of this Court can hear and decide the writ petitions as well. So the appeal bearing No. 48 of 1997 was clubbed together with all those writ petitions and arguments in the special appeal as well as the writ petitions were heard together. Hence first of all we will deal with the question of fact and law which has arisen in this Special Appeal No. 48 of 1997 an4 thereafter, will consider the case of the petitioners of the writ petitions.

(2.) The Scooters India Limited, Lucknow which is a State undertaking on account of certain financial difficulties which at the relevant time was facing, promulgated a Golden Handshake Scheme known as Voluntary Retirement Scheme by means of which they issued a circular that those employees who opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme, may be retired, The employees who feared retrenchment from service have opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The appellants opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme from a prospective date but the appellants before the date mentioned in the order, they withdrew their option, which was not accepted by the authorities of the Scooters India Limited and thereafter they relieved the appellant from duty.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved against the action of the Scooters India Limited, Lucknow, the appellant knocked the door of this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The authorities of the Scooters India Limited during the pendency of the writ petition paid the dues to the appellants with the cheque. It was contended before the Hon'ble the single Judge on behalf of the Scooters India Limited that after the appellant accepted Golden Handshake Scheme with the Scooters India Limited, the appellant cannot resile from the same, therefore the appellant is estopped from challenging his compulsory retirement. This contention was accepted by Hon'ble the single Judge who dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, the appellants filed the Special Appeal.