K LINGA REDDY Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order issued by the third respondent in Ref.No.CITD/EG-56/ 83/4633, dated 9-3-2005 as confirmed in the orders in Memo No.21/03/CITD/2004/TR-1, dated 28-4-2005 issued by the second respondent and quash the same holding as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory and further declare that the petitioner's voluntary retirement application is deemed to have been accepted with effect from 30-6-2004 and direct the respondents to release all the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefits to the petitioner immediately.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the Central Institute of Tool Design (CITD), Hyderabad in which the petitioner was working as Deputy Director, introduced the VRS on 1-1-2004 as approved by the Governing Council of the Institute. As per the said scheme, the eligibility of the employee for opting the said scheme is that the employee must have completed ten years of satisfactory service and also should have attained the age of 40 years. Further as per Clause (5) the Principal Director of CITD shall have exclusive right to decide, to grant or to reject the request for voluntary retirement. The other conditions specified in the scheme may not be relevant for the purpose of this case. It is stated that though the third respondent forwarded four applications out of eight applications received by the institute, the petitioner's application was not forwarded and accepted, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13433 of 2004 which was disposed of on 2-8-2004, directing the third respondent to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner in the light of the directions given therein. Thereafter the third respondent passed order rejecting the application of the petitioner. In fact, in the meanwhile the petitioner was transferred from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing W.P. No.14812 of 2004 which was also disposed of by this Court on 28-12-2004 under which the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 11 -8-2004 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the third respondent for reconsideration afresh in terms of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.13433 of 2004, dated 2-8-2004. Thereafter the third respondent again passed order rejecting the application of the petitioner. In fact, under the impugned order, the third respondent was specifically relied upon Clause (5) of the VRS Scheme dated 1-1-2004, stating that the Principal Director has got exclusive right either to grant or reject the' voluntary retirement application.

(3.) Further the stand of the third respondent was that voluntary retirement applications were accepted only in respect of those cases where the posts to be vacated by the employees on the acceptance of the said application are to be abolished, and therefore, the petitioner's application was not accepted as it would cause dislocation of the work and the post would be abolished. It is further stated that though the VRS Scheme was first introduced on 1 -1 -2004 it was extended from time to time, intending to reduce the existing staff, which clearly shows that the respondent Institute is interested to reduce the number of staff including the members occupying the posts of Directors and Deputy Directors, as is evident from the proceedings of the second respondent approving the proposal sent by the third respondent for abolition of 6 posts of Directors/Deputy Directors. According to the third respondent, the petitioner, as Deputy Director, was looking after the duties of Training Department and functioning as Faculty Member and abolition of the post of Deputy Director will cause serious dislocation of the work in the Institute and will result in the abolition of the post of Deputy Director, which the petitioner is holding, and therefore, the application of the petitioner was rejected. Though the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent, the second respondent agreed with the view of the third respondent and accordingly rejected the appeal. Hence the present writ petition.