OIL INDIA LIMITED Vs. DILIP KUMAR GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated July 6, 1995 passed in Civil Rule No. 1879 of 1994 whereby the learned single Judge quashed the order dated March 23, 1994 Annexure-U) and January 8, 1994(Annexure-S) passed by the appellant company. Being aggrieved thereby, the Oil India Limited has preferred this appeal controverting the validity and propriety of the above decision.

(2.) The respondent was serving as an Engineer in the appellant- company. He was sent on deputation to the Assam Indusrial Development Corporation (Refinery and Petrochemical Division) as Manager in the year 1987. While on deputation, he applied for appointment in IBP Company Limited, a Government of India Enterprise. The IBP Company offered appointment to the respondent as Senior Manager (Project) in Numaligarh Refinery, Assam. On receipt of the aforesaid order, the respondent requested the appellant-Company to allow him to go on voluntary retirement as per Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the company. On April 10, 1993, the request for voluntary retirement was accepted and the petitioner was provisionally released from the service of the appellant company w.e.f. March 30, 1993 (after office hours) subject to clarification from the Deptt. of Public Enterprise. The said letter appended as Annexure 'M' to the writ application is reproduced below:

(3.) It would appear from the aforesaid letter that the request of the respondent to allow him to go on voluntary retirement was accepted provisionally in view of a letter written by the Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Assam to the effect that Department of Public Enterprise confirmed that the writ petitioner could join IBP Company after taking voluntary retirement from the appellant Company. Thereafter the appellant company, on receipt of clarification from the Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India, vide letter dated January 8, 1994 (Annexure-S) informed that the release of the writ petitioner was being treated as resignation and not voluntary retirement. The said letter reads as below: