Heard Mr. R K Malakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the 4 writ petitions. Also heard Mr. K D Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 & 3. Also heard Mr. H K Barman, learned Govt. Advocate who appears for respondent No.1.
2.The petitioners, who were Grade IV employees under the Assam Government Marketing Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation), by filing these writ petitions challenge the office order dated 6.4.2005 (Annexure D) issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation, whereby 55 employees of the Corporation have been permitted to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 11.4.2005. The names of the 4 petitioners appeared in the said impugned memorandum at serial Nos.26, 49, 50 and 51 respectively.
3. Mr. R K Malakar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order to go on voluntary retirement contends, that the said direction of the respondent Corporation is arbitrary in as much as, the petitioners herein never opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme notified by the Govt. of Assam on 20.9.2004 (Annexure G), but had in fact applied for voluntary retirement scheme under the Central Government notification dated 5.10.1988 (Annexure F). Accordingly, it is submitted that the decision to give the voluntary retirement to the 4 petitioners should be interfered by the Court.
4. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that even before the voluntary retirement order dated 6.4.2005 was officially served on the petitioner, all the 4 petitioners by writing to their employer on 7.4.2005, had withdrawn their request opting to go on voluntary retirement and accordingly the said impugned order passed on 6.4.2005 could not have been implemented by the authorities of the Corporation.
5. The next contention made on behalf of the petitioners is that the financial benefits provided to the Retirees by the notification, dated 20.9.2004 (Annexure G) issued by the Assam Government's Commissioner and Secretary of the Deptt. Of Public Enterprises, offered less beneficial benefits, as compared to the incentives indicated in the Central Government's memorandum dated 5.10.1988 (Annexure F) and accordingly it is submitted that the petitioners should not be forced to accept the lesser financial benefits offered through the State Government's notification dated 20.9.2004.
6. Representing the respondent Corporation, it is argued by Mr. K D Singh, learned counsel that each of the petitioners in the year 1999 had opted in writing to go on voluntary retirement and since requisite funds were not available with the Corporation to meet the obligations under voluntary retirement scheme, the application filed by the petitioners should not be acted upon immediately. But as the decision to introduce voluntary retirement scheme for the employees of the Corporation were taken to ensure survival of the Corporation, proposals were submitted to the Government for sanctioning of adequate funds to implement the voluntary retirement scheme. Once the necessary funds were provided, the respondent Corporation issued order granting voluntary retirement to 55 employees and it is submitted by the learned counsel that barring the 4 writ petitioners the others have already accepted the financial benefits, offered under the voluntary retirement scheme.
7. The learned counsel also submits that the notification dated 5.10.2008 of the Central Government was not a scheme of voluntary retirement but was an advisory issued by the Central Government to introduce voluntary retirement schemes for reducing surplus manpower in Public Sector Enterprises. It is submitted further that the only scheme that has been introduced for employees under the State Public Enterprises in Assam, is the one notified on 20.9.2004 and all the employees of various Public Enterprises in Assam, including the employees of the respondent Corporation, have been given voluntary retirement as per the terms notified in the said State Government's notification dated 20.9.2004. Accordingly, it is contended that there cannot be any claim of the petitioner to opt for voluntary retirement under the scheme purportedly notified by the Central Government on 5.10.1988 as no scheme was brought into force by the said Central Government notification dated 5.10.1988.
8. Mr. K D Singh also contends that although there is some differences in the financial benefits provided through the State Government's notification dated 20.9.2004, in comparison to the suggested benefits in the Central Government's notification dated 5.10.1988, since a uniform scheme for all the employees in all the public sector enterprises in Assam have been offered uniform benefits notified by the Assam Government on 20.9.2004, there cannot be any departure and better financial benefits, for any section of employees, which might be un-satisfied with the financial benefits, payable under the State Government's notification dated 20.9.2004.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 also refers to the additional affidavit filed on 25.2.2008 on behalf of the Corporation to show that even after retirement under voluntary retirement scheme of a large number of employees, the Corporation is running at a loss and with a huge outstanding liabilities and the financial position of the Corporation is not good enough to take back any of the employees who have been given voluntary retirement as per the option of the employee. It is also contended that once the voluntary retirement scheme was executed, the posts against which the employees, who sought voluntary retirement, have been automatically abolished and there is no possibility to take back any of the employees, who had applied for and was granted voluntary retirement, from the Corporation.
10. From a reading of the Central Government's notification dated 5.10.1988 (Annexure F), it is clear that the said memorandum was not an actual scheme for voluntary retirement but was an advisory issued by the Central Government to introduce voluntary retirement scheme for the employees of the Public Sector Enterprises with a view of reducing surplus manpower. The advisory indicated some terms, which could be made the basis for introducing voluntary retirement scheme for employees. But the actual scheme which meant for employees of the Assam State Public Enterprises, was actually notified on 20.9.2004 with specific terms incorporated in the State's Scheme. No other scheme for the State Public Sector employees other than the one notified on 20.9.2004 was introduced and the Govt. of India's notification being an advisory cannot be made the basis of better financial benefits.
11. Under the above circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention made on behalf of the petitioners that they had opted for voluntary retirement against the "scheme" notified by the Central Government on 5.10.1988 and therefore, their applications filed in the year 1999, cannot be acted upon to grant them voluntary retirement, under the scheme notified by the State Government on 20.9.2004. This contention of the petitioners is accordingly rejected.
12. It is also seen that the impugned order dated 6.4.2005 granting voluntary retirement to 55 employees of the Corporation was passed after various steps and consultation at different levels and also resolutions of the Boards, taken at various stages. Finally the said order dated 6.4.2005 could be issued only after sanctioning of the requisite money by the State Government to execute the scheme of voluntary retirement by the respondent Corporation for its employees. Once the order dated 6.4.2005 was issued, the voluntary retirement scheme under the Corporation comes into operation, and the 4 petitioners herein, who opted to withdraw their request to grant them voluntary retirement scheme on the next date i.e. on 7.4.2005, had obviously made the said withdrawal request, only after learning of the notification dated 6.4.2005.
Although the impugned notification itself was subsequently served on the petitioners', this Court cannot be unmindful that while submitting applications on 7.4.2008 seeking to withdraw their respective voluntary retirement applications, the petitioners were already aware of the issuance of the impugned notification dated 6.4.2005. Therefore, under such circumstances, withdrawal letters dated 7.4.2005 cannot come to the aid of the petitioners to contend that their request for voluntary retirement stood withdrawn by their said letter.
13. As regards the claim for better financial terms, claimed as per the Central Government's notification dated 5.10.1988 and the purported grievance for getting lesser financial benefits under the State Government's notification dated 20.9.2004, I am of the considered opinion that since an uniform financial compensation schemes for all employees in all the Public Sector Enterprises in Assam have been introduced and voluntary retirements have been granted to a large number of employees under the said voluntary retirement scheme, there cannot be any basis for better financial terms as claimed by the petitioners, on the basis of the Central Government's notification dated 5.10.1988, since it is already held that the said notification was not an effective scheme, but was merely an advisory of the Central Government.
14. It is also noticed that barring the present petitioners, all the 55 employees notified in the impugned order dated 6.4.2005 have accepted the said order and opted to go on voluntary retirement without any challenge. The petitioners also sought voluntary retirement by making formal application and respective applications were processed by the Corporation, only after receipt of the application of the individual employee. Under such circumstances, hold that the impugned order dated 6.4.2005 cannot be described to be an arbitrary order, justifying interference of this Court.
15. In view of the above reasoning, I am not inclined to accept these writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.
