NANDINI NITIN PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra and respondent No. 2 is the Overseas Employment and Export Promotion Corporation of Maharashtra. Petitioner was employed in the services of respondent No. 2 as Executive Officer from 6th January, 1984. Some time in the month of August 1988, Respondent No. 2 took a decision to introduce voluntary retirement scheme (VRS for short) for the employees including officers of respondent No. 2 Corporation as the respondent Corporation was facing acute financial crisis. The respondent No. 2, therefore, by a Circular dated 22nd August, 1988 announced the voluntary retirement scheme and called upon the officers and employees to accept the voluntary retirement so as to enable the Corporation to overcome financial crisis.

(2.) THE Circular dated 22nd August, 1988 did not contain attractive voluntary retirement scheme and consequently, there was no response from the employees or officers. No officer or employee came forward to accept voluntary retirement under the said scheme offered by the respondent No. 2 vide Circular dated 22nd August, 1988 which inter alia suggested the voluntary retirement scheme with benefit of one months salary (basic + D. A.) for each completed year of the service with the Corporation and for that purpose any employee who had completed the service of six months or more were to be entitled for one months salary under the said voluntary retirement scheme announced by the respondent under Circular dated 22nd August, 1988. Since there was absolutely no response from the officers or employees and considering the financial crisis, and to make the scheme more attractive respondent No. 2 came out with another Circular dated 26-9-1988, which contained somewhat revised voluntary retirement scheme. The said circular dated 26-9-1988 offered compensation at the rate of 3 months salary (basic + D. A.) for each completed year of service with the Corporation. The other terms as offered remained the same as in accordance with the scheme announced under circular dated 22-8-1988. The petitioner finding the scheme attractive came forward and accepted the said representation of the respondent No. 2 Corporation contained in circular dated 26-9-1988. The petitioner, therefore, by her letter dated 21-10-1988 expressed her desire to accept the voluntary retirement scheme announced by the Corporation under circular dated 26-9-1988 specifically pleading therein that if she was to accept the voluntary retirement under circular dated 26-9-1988, she would not be completing 5 years service in the employment of respondent No. 2 and, therefore, requested respondent No. 2 to consider her request for gratuity considering and accepting as if the petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 2 for a period of five years for the purpose of Gratuity only. The petitioner further expressed that if the said condition was acceptable to the respondent No. 2 her application dated 21-10-1988 be treated as an application for voluntary retirement as per the scheme announced by the Corporation under modified circular dated 26-9-1988.

(3.) THE Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 Corporation vide its letter dated 21-10-1988 informed the petitioner that her request as contained in her letter dated 21-10-1988 has been considered and accepted by the Corporation. Petitioner was accordingly relieved from the services of the Corporation with effect from 6-12-1988 (A. N. ).