GANESWAR BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as an N.M.R. in the establishment of Orissa Power Generation Corporation ( O.P.G.C. for short), a public sector undertaking under the Govt. of Orissa in Energy Department. The O.P.G.C. floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme ( V.R.S. for short) for the N.M.R. workmen working under it. The bone of contention between the petitioner and the O.P.G.C. relates to the V.R.S. The stand of the O.P.G.C. is that the petitioner having opted for voluntary retirement under the V.R.S. and having taken all the financial benefits admissible under the V.R.S., the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner s stand is that he had no interest to take voluntary retirement, but he having been coerced to accept the offer of voluntary retirement under the V.R.S. and after he was relieved from service under the V.R.S., service of some of the N.M.Rs. similarly circumstanced with him having been regularized, action against him vide Annexure-3, the Notice offering V.R.S. to him and Annexure-4 the relieve order under the V.R.S. are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same are liable to be quashed.

(2.) It is not disputed that the V.R.S. was floated by the O.P.G.C. and Notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.10.1995 vide Annexure-3 to give option under the V.R.S. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he had opted for voluntary retirement and took all the financial benefits admissible to him under the V.R.S. Contention of the petitioner is to the effect that under normal circumstance he would not have taken voluntary retirement, as he was not interested for the same. The tone and tenor of the Notice vide Annexure-3 however was coercive, in as much as if the petitioner would not have opted for voluntary retirement, action under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as contemplated in the Notice vide Annexure-3 would have been taken against him. It is further contended that after the petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement under the V.R.S., Service of some of the N.M.Rs. similarly circumstanced with the petitioner was regularised and in that view of the matter, the petitioner has got a just claim for regularisation of his service despite his voluntary retirement.

(3.) Whether the petitioner had any interest to take voluntary retirement under the V.R.S. or not is a question which cannot be gone into or addressed in a writ petition, because his action of taking voluntary retirement is presumed to be voluntary in nature unless the contrary is proved. The facts, which run contrary to the act of voluntariness of the petitioner is alleged to be the last paragraph of the Notice, vide Annexure-3, legalityand validity of which the petitioner has challenged. For better appreciation and ready reference, Annexure-3 is quoted as hereunder :-