SHYAMAL KUMAR HALDER Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that he has opted for voluntary retirement in February, 2010 whereas he was allowed to retire on voluntary scheme on May 21, 2010. It was submitted that on the basis of prevailing rules the date of retirement is fixed in the following terms :

(2.) THE learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the respondentauthorities ought to have terminated the writ petitioner on the last day of the month but in the instant case they have erroneously and/or illegally terminated the service of the petitioner on 21st May, 2010. He submits that although this was a general guideline for retirement taking into account the date of birth but the same is attracted in this case especially when the scheme for voluntary retirement does not disclose any such guideline. According to him, the actions of the respondent-authorities are illegal and the writ petitioner's termination should be declared by this Court, on the last day of May, 2010.

(3.) MR. Majumdar, learned counsel representing Eastern Coalfields Ltd., submits that this was a voluntary scheme. The writ petitioner himself opted for termination taking some advantage even in spite of not doing or performing the duty on the basis of the scheme and his application was of February, 2010. However, he has worked till the approval as required under the scheme was obtained and, therefore, he has worked for five moths more and got the salary for that which is beneficial for the writ petitioner. He submits that this is a normal rule in case of all the employees who are retiring in normal course of their employment without opting and/or applying the special scheme formulated for the employees. Mr. Majumdar submits that there is a decision in that regard reported in AIR 2003 SC 2189 ( paragraphs 33 and 34). Mr. Majumdar led emphasize on the Supreme Court's observations that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and forgoing all his claims or rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in business world it is known as 'Golden Hand-shake'. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. Mr. Majumdar submits that the action of the writ petitioner is for getting some additional advantage or benefit in case the remaining period of the month i.e till 31st May, 2010 is declared as the date of termination. He submits that the decision of the Supreme Court is quite clear and it clearly held in the foregoing judgment that after taking the benefits the relationship between the employer and employee ceases and no agitation should be made on account of any other or further claim subsequently. It was submitted that the petitioner have received all his dues under the scheme.