ASHOK HURIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not counting his service of 11 years and 5 months in Hindustan Zinc Limited, Udaipur (H.Z.L.) while computing the pension payable to him when he sought voluntary retirement from the Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Pinjore (H.M.T.). The undisputed facts are that while working in H.Z.L. The petitioner applied for the post of Engineer in H.M.T. through proper channel. He was selected, resigned from H.Z.L. and joined in H.M.T. The gratuity amount payable to him was received by him in cash while the amount to his credit in provident fund account was transferred to H.M.T. In the year 2000, the Government of India promulgated the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (V.R.S.) which was applicable to all the Public Sector Undertakings including H.M.T. under which one of the conditions was that an employee must have 10 years service and at least 40 years of age to be eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under the V.R.S. The petitioner applied for V.R.S. and mentioned in the application against the column of service that he had more than 20 years of service in the H.M.T. and 11 years and 5 months of service in the H.Z.L. His request for V.R.S. was accepted and he was retired on 30.11.2000. After retirement he represented that while calculating the computation to be paid to him his previous service in the H.Z.L. was not counted and he prayed that the benefit thereof may be granted to him. The prayer having been rejected by letter dated 15.01.2001 (Annexure P-9) he filed the instant writ petition.

(2.) The controversy has to be determined in the light of Clause VI(b) of the said Scheme which is quoted herein below:-

(3.) On the contrary, the assertion of learned senior counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 4 is that key words are 'borrowing PSU' and 'lending PSU'. As per him, the benefit of previous service in another PSU could only be granted if an employee was sent on deputation to another PSU and the mere fact that the petitioner had applied through proper channel or that his provident fund was transferred would not be determinative.