KHEM CHAND SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who had been appointed as Development Officers by respondent No. 2, i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., in the year 1981 (in the case of petitioner No. 1) and 1984 (in the case of petitioner No. 2), have filed the present writ petition, seeking quashing of orders, dated 1.4.2003 and 16.4.2003, Annexures P-7, P-8 and P-9, by which they have been voluntarily retired and also issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents, to reinstate them to the posts of Development Officers and to treat the period of their unemployment as duty period and to pay them pay and allowances for that period and also to give them all consequential service benefits. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Development Officer with Oriental Insurance Company, impleaded as respondent No. 2, in the year 1981, while the other petitioner was appointed in the same capacity, with the same Company, in the year 1984. Government of India, Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs (Department of Economic Affairs), Insurance Division, published a Scheme called General Insurance (Rationalization of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Amendment Scheme, 2003, vide Notification dated 2.1.2003. Scheme, as per clause 1 (2), was to come into force on the date of publication of the said Notification in the Official Gazette. The Scheme was published in the Official Gazette on 3.1.2003 and, therefore, it came into force on 3.1.2003. Clause 15C of the Scheme, which is reproduced below, provided for Special Voluntary Retirement Package for Development Officers:

(2.) Petitioners, vide their written requests, dated 3.3.2003, (Annexure P-2 in the case of Anil Vaidya, petitioner No. 2) applied for voluntary retirement, in accordance with Clause 15C. Their requests were acceded to and they were retired, vide communications dated 1.4.2003, copies Annexures P-7 and P-8. They were thereafter relieved.

(3.) Case of the petitioners is that Communications Annexures P-7 and P-8 were, in fact, issued and dispatched after they had written to the functionaries of respondent No. 2, for withdrawal of their requests for voluntary retirement. According to them, they had written communications, copies Annexures P-4 and P-5, for withdrawal of their requests for voluntary retirement on 9.4.2003 and it was only after they had submitted such requests, Annexures P-4 and P-5, that orders for relieving them, Annexures P-7 and P-8, were issued. The same were back dated, to create evidence that petitioners' requests for voluntary retirement stood accepted, before they submitted communications, Annexure P-4 and P-5, for withdrawal of requests for voluntary retirement. It is also averred by the petitioners that though the Scheme provided for payment of ex-gratia money within 45 days of the officers being relieved, money on account of ex-gratia grant was sought to be paid to them after the expiry of 45 days period, as prescribed in clause (13) of the Scheme and because of this, orders of acceptance of their requests for voluntary retirement and their relieving, become infructuous.