NITYANANDA DAS Vs. OSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a Conductor in Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, Bhubaneswar (in short OSRTC) has filed this application challenging the order dated 18.05.2001 Annexure- 5(A) rejecting his application under Voluntary Retirement Scheme on the ground that he got below 10 years of qualifying service and therefore, the same was not being acceptable.

(2.) The petitioner appointed as a Conductor on 13.08.1987, vide Annexure-1, having remained unauthorizedly absent w.e.f. 12.03.1996. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him for that on 17.01.1997 on the charge of misconduct. In view of the provisions contained under Regulation-110(3) of the OSRTC Employees (Classification, Recruitment and Condition of Service) Regulation, 1978, in short "1978 Regulation" no employee, shall proceed on leave without obtaining permission to avail himself leave pending sanction of leave applied for by him from the immediate superior or competent authority, as the case may be. When the matter stood thus, the Government of Orissa in Department of Public Ent1erprises issued a Resolution on dated 06.06.1998 introducing a Model Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the employees of State Public Sector Undertakings, which was accepted by the OSRTC in its Resolution dated 06.06.1998. As per such scheme, the petitioner submitted his application for Voluntary Retirement, which had been which had been forwarded to the General Manager (Administration), OSRTC vide Annexure-3(A).

(3.) In the disciplinary proceeding, the DTM(A), OSRTC, Cuttack issued office order dated 08.02.2000 suggesting that the period of unauthorized absence of the petitioner from duty from 13.3.1996 to 7.2.2000 might be treaded as leave without pay with imposition of ancillary punishments. Vide Annexure-5 dated 08.3.2001, the DTM (A), OSRTC, Cuttack issued an office order pursuant to the order of the CMD, OSRTC allowing 52 persons to retire from service as per the Voluntary Scheme w.e.f 8.3.2001 but in the case of the petitioner, it was stated that since he had not completed 10 years of qualifying service, his application for retirement under VRS was rejected. Hence this writ application.