CWP No. 14623 of 2005 (1)
` IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 7.7.2008
Ashwani Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
The National Textile Corporation Ltd. and others
.....Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Present: Shri Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, for the respondents.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the
communication dated 1.4.2005 (Annexure P.6), whereby, the
representation of the petitioner for adjustment in the
alternative post with the respondent-Corporation was
declined.
The petitioner while working with the Panipat
Woolen Mills, respondent No.3, was promoted as Supervisor
on 11.12.1987. On 21.11.2003, a circular was issued and the
employees, such as the petitioners were given option to seek
voluntary retirement. The offer of the petitioner to seek
voluntary retirement was received on 20.12.2003 and in
pursuance of such communication, the petitioner was ordered
to be retired voluntarily vide order dated 19.2.2004 (Annexure
P.2) with effect from 21.2.2004 (afternoon). In the request for
CWP No. 14623 of 2005 (2)
voluntary retirement (Annexure P.1), the petitioner has sought
voluntary retirement and also undertaken not to withdraw the
resignation tendered by him. However, he also requested to
adjust him in any other unit of the respondent-Corporation.
The petitioner was retired in terms of his offer, but
was not adjusted against the alternative post, therefore, the
petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.1975 of 2005. The said
writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 4.2.2005, but a
direction was issued to the Corporation to decide the
representation of the petitioner for adjustment. In pursuance
of such direction, order Annexure P.6 dated 1.4.2005, has
been passed to the effect that there is no suitable vacancy in
any of the units of the Corporation, against which the
petitioner’s request for adjustment could be considered.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation
(Annexure P.7), pointing out that a number of employees have
been adjusted in the other units of the Corporation. Therefore,
it was alleged that the non-adjustment of the petitioner is
arbitrary and illegal. Aggrieved against his non-adjustment
against the alternative vacancies alleged to be available with
the Corporation, the petitioner has now invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
In reply, it has been pointed out that the
petitioner retired on the basis of modified retirement scheme
from the service of Panipat Woolen Mills Ltd. It is pointed out
that the Panipat Woolen Mills, where the petitioner was
employed, has been permanently closed as per the scheme
sanctioned by the Board of Industrial and Financial
Reconstruction. It was pointed out that on 21.11.2003 a
circular was issued to the effect that the respondent-Mills was
CWP No. 14623 of 2005 (3)
going to be closed and accordingly, applications were invited
from the employees for seeking voluntary retirement. It is
pointed out that since the petitioner sought voluntarily
retirement under the modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme,
therefore, the request of the petitioner for transfer to the other
units is without any substance and that there is no suitable
vacancy for the petitioner in any of the Units of the
respondent-Corporation against which he could be adjusted. It
is also pointed out that the petitioner was relieved from the
respondent-Mills on 21.2.2004, but the petitioner has not
come to the Mills to collect the relieving order. It was also
pointed out that some persons have been adjusted against the
alternative posts, but no suitable post is available for
adjustment of the petitioner in any of the units of the
respondent-Corporation.
The challenge to the voluntary retirement of the
petitioner has attained finality with the dismissal of Civil Writ
Petition No. 1975 of 2005, vide order dated 4.2.2005. This
Court has directed the Corporation to decide his
representation for adjustment in some other unit. It is the
categorical stand of the respondent-Corporation that there is
no suitable vacancy against which the petitioner could be
adjusted. In fact, Shri Mehtani, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-Corporation, during the course of arguments
has stated that in Delhi, Punjab and Rajasthan Regions of
National Textile Corporation Ltd. (i.e. Respondent No.1), only
one unit is working and all other units have since been closed.
Therefore, there is no post against which the petitioner can be
adjusted.
The direction to consider adjustment against the
CWP No. 14623 of 2005 (4)
available post is only a concession. Once, the request of the
petitioner for voluntary retirement has been accepted, the
petitioner has no right to seek adjustment in other units of the
Corporation. Merely because some other employees have been
adjusted, does not confer any cause of action on the petitioner
for adjustment as the adjustment has to be made keeping in
view the suitability of a candidate and availability of the
vacancy. There is nothing on record, wherefrom it could be
inferred that the decision of the respondents that no suitable
post is available, is illegal or arbitrary, which may warrant
interference by this Court.
In view of the above, no case for interference is
made out. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
(MOHINDER PAL)
JUDGE
07-07-2008
ds