Telangana High Court
WP/16001/1999 of B.James, Vs The Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, on 29 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WPMP.No.36953 of 2008 & WRIT PETITION No: 16001 of 1999 BETWEEN: 1 B.James, S/o. Devanandam,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWPMP.No.36953 of 2008
&
WRIT PETITION No: 16001 of 1999
BETWEEN:
1 B.James, S/o. Devanandam, A.P.State Irrigation Development Corporation, Sub Division, Kurnool.
2 C.Chinna Eranna, S/o. C.Linganna, A.P.S.I.D.C., Sub Division, Nandyal, Kurnool District. Nandyal, Kurnool District.
... PETITIONERS
AND
1 The Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, A.P.State Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd., Maitrivanam, Huda Commercial Development Corporation Ltd., Maitrivanam, Huda Commercial Complex, Srinivasanagar Colony, East Hyderabad.
2 Executive Engineer, A.P.S.I.D.C., Ltd., Kurnool.
3 Secretary to Government, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ order or Direction more particularly in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to retirethe petitioners the action of the respondents in trying to retire the petitionersunder the VRS scheme as laid down under circular Memo No.IDC/MD/Adm/E1/As01/E/VRS/95/6777 dated 12/12/1997 issued inpursuance of unconstitutional and declare that the petitioners are entitled tocontinue as Irrigation attendant in the A.P. State Irrigation DevelopmentCorporation Limited and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'bleCourt may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.BALA KRISHNA MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREADEV.
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action ofthe respondent in seeking to retire the petitioners under Voluntary RetirementScheme in purported implementation of circular MemoNo.IDC/MD/Adm/E1/AS01/PE/VRS/95/6777 dated 12.12.1997 as illegal.
2. The petitioners were given compassionate appointments in place oftheir deceased fathers in the year 1995. The Andhra Pradesh State IrrigationDevelopment Corporation Limited (for short, ‘the Corporation’) issued circulardated 12.12.1997 providing for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The guidelinespertaining to the said scheme include eligibility criteria. Guideline No.1 readsas under:
“I. Eligibility:
The V.R. Scheme shall be made applicable to theregular/permanent employees who have either:
a)Rendered an uninterrupted service of minimum ten
(10) years in the Corporation, or
b)Attained forty (40) years of age on the date of application.”
3. The petitioners specifically pleaded that out of coercion they weremade to submit their application for voluntary retirement and at a later pointof time when they sought to withdraw their applications, they were rejectedon the ground that their applications were already acted upon. According tothe petitioners, the action of the Corporation in accepting their purportedrequest for voluntary retirement is contrary to the above conditions ofeligibility contained in the scheme, as they have neither put in the minimumuninterrupted service of ten years in the Corporation or attained the age of 40years on the date of application.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the plea of thepetitioners that the Corporation coerced them into filing their applications forvoluntary retirement has been denied. It is also stated that their subsequentrequest to permit them to withdraw the applications was rejected as theirapplications were accepted by the Corporation by that time and that such acourse was not permissible after acceptance of their request.
5. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by order dated 22.12.2008.After the aforesaid order was dictated on 22.12.2008 allowing the writ petitionand before the said order was transcribed and signed, Smt. Kavita Gottipati,learned counsel for the respondents filed WPMP.No.36953 of 2008supported by an affidavit for posting the writ petition under the caption “ForBeing Mentioned”. The case was adjourned to enable the learned counselfor the petitioners to make his further submissions. Today, further hearing ofthe case has been held.
6. At the hearing, learned counsel for the respondents invited myattention to the averment in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1wherein it is inter alia mentioned as under:
“The Government vide their Memo.No.47538/PE-1/A2/98-1dated 26.08.1998 have declared a special package of V.R.S for thoseregular employees who have not put in 10 years of service and suchemployees are eligible for the V.R.S. package benefit of not less thanRs.30,000/-. The said instructions of Government are circulated to allthe Division Offices/Notice Board of the respondent corporation videcircular Memi.No.3698 dated 17.09.1998 and the field officers wereasked to forward the applications from those who have not put in 10years of service also.”
The learned counsel also placed before me aMemo.No.47538/PE/A2/98-1 dated 26.08.1998 by which the VoluntaryRetirement scheme was amended to the above-mentioned effect. She also submitted that in pursuance of the said amendment, the respondents have given voluntary retirement to the petitioners and thatthey have received the package benefit under the Voluntary Retirement scheme.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners conceded this fact and submittedthat in view of the coercion exerted by the respondents, the petitioners had no option other than accepting the cheque and encashingthe same. He further stated that the amendment has not relaxed thecondition contained in the original scheme that the employee should cross 40years of age to qualify for voluntary retirement.
8. In my considered opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed onthe ground of acquiescence. The fact that the petitioners have not onlyreceived the cheques but also encashed them belies their contention thatthey received the cheques under coercion.
While no foundation is laid by the petitioners in support of their plea ofcoercion, even if acceptance of cheque can be said to be under coercion, thepetitioners failed to show any further compulsion on their part to encash thesame. Assuming that the subsequent amendment did not enable therespondents to give voluntary retirement to the employees who did not cross40 years of age, the action of the petitioners in encashing the chequesshows their conscious waiver or act of acquiescence in questioning theaction of the respondents in giving voluntary retirement to the petitioners.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be and isaccordingly dismissed.
December 29, 2008DSK
_____________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J