{"id":50005,"date":"2003-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003"},"modified":"2016-09-24T03:02:46","modified_gmt":"2016-09-23T21:32:46","slug":"s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working … vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The … on 14 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working … vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The … on 14 February, 2003<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2003 (4) BomCR 79, 2003 (2) MhLj 691<\/div>\n
Author: C Thakker<\/div>\n
Bench: C Thakker, D Chandrachud<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 C.K. Thakker, C.J. <\/p>\n
1. Both the above petitions have been filed
\nby the petitioner for an appropriate writ,
\ndirection or order challenging the action of the
\nrespondents, adversely affecting the service
\nconditions of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
2. So far as the first petition, i.e., Writ
\nPetition No. 5373 of 2002, is concerned, a
\ndeclaration is sought that as there was breach of
\nterms and conditions of absorption by Government of
\nIndia because of disinvestment of its equity stake
\nin Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (VSNL, for short)
\nin favour of a private company, the petitioners and
\nall similarly situated persons are entitled to re-
\nopt to receive Government pensionary benefits by
\nrefunding the amounts received by them as  pro-rata
\npension\/lumpsum payment at the time of their
\nabsorption with VSNL. It was also prayed that the
\nGovernment of India is liable to pay to the
\npetitions and all similarly situated employees
\npensionary benefits as per Government Rules on
\ntheir re-opting for Government pensionary benefits.
\nConsequential reliefs were also sought.\n<\/p>\n
3. In the second petition,  i.e., Writ
\nPetition No. 5374 of 2002, a prayer is made for
\ndeclaring that the action of the respondent in not
\ngiving the petitioners and similarly situated
\nemployees, who had not completed ten years of
\nservice with the Government of India, the right to
\nexercise option for retaining Government pensionary
\nbenefits on their absorption with VSNL is
\narbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles
\n14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was, therefore,
\nprayed that appropriate direction be issued to the
\nGovernment of India that the Petitioners and
\nsimilarly situated employees, who had not completed
\nten years of service on their date of absorption in
\nVSNL, are entitled to exercise option for retaining
\nGovernment pensionary benefits by counting their
\nservice in Government of India along with their
\nservice with VSNL for such benefits.\n<\/p>\n
4. The case of the petitioners is that in
\n1986, the Government of India created VSNL by
\nconverting VSNL as a wholly-owned Government
\nPublic Sector Company. Several employees were
\nworking with VSNL at that time. On December 11,
\n1989, notices were given to the employees working
\nin VSNL on deputation asking them to exercise
\noption either to be absorbed in the regular service
\nof VSNL with effect from January, 1990 or to retain
\nGovernment benefits in respect of pension and other
\nbenefits. According to the petitions, employees,
\nwho had not completed ten years in Government
\nservice, were not entitled to pensionary benefits,
\nand hence, no option was given to them. VSNL has
\ngiven certain terms and conditions in respect of
\npensionary benefits after exercising the option by
\nthe employees to be absorbed with it. It was
\nmentioned that the permanent Government employees
\ncould give an option to retain pensionary benefits
\navailable to them in accordance with the Government
\nRules or they could opt for being governed by rules
\nof VSNL. Such option was also made available to
\nquasi-permanent as well as temporary employees. A
\ncopy of the memorandum is annexed to the petition.
\nIt is stated by the petitioners that several
\nemployees in various non-executive cadres opted for
\nabsorption with VSNL and to receive  pro-rata
\npension\/lumpsum amount.\n<\/p>\n
5. The petitioners, however, stated that in
\n2000-01, the Government of India took a policy
\ndecision of disinvestment of VSNL shares,
\nPetitioner No. 3, Federation of the Videsh Sanchar
\nNigam Employees Union, therefore, wrote a letter to
\nthe Hon’ble Minister for Communications, Government
\nof India, on December 12, 2000, requesting him that
\nsale of VSNL shares must ensure safeguards and
\nguarantees for the employees of VSNL, including job
\nsecurity, proper employees of VSNL, including job
\nsecurity, proper emoluments, pensionary benefits,
\netc. Such letter was also written in January,
\n2001, reiterating what was stated in the earlier
\nletter. The attention of the Minister was also
\ninvited to Sub-rules (25) and (26) of Rule 37-A of
\nthe Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which
\nwas introduced by amendment of 2000, which provided
\nthat the Government of India disinvesting its
\nshares in any public sector undertaking to the
\nextent of 50% or more must provide adequate
\nsafeguards for protecting interest of absorbed
\nemployees with such public sector undertaking.
\nSuch letters were addressed to the Hon’ble the
\nPrime Minister also. They have been annexed to the
\npetition. A request was also made to the Managing
\nDirector of VSNL, respondent No. 3 herein, so that
\nthe interest of the employees, who had been
\nabsorbed in VSNL, may not be prejudicially
\naffected. It was stated that by the action of
\ndisinvestment by the Government of India, the
\nemployees would lose their status as Government
\nEmployees, and they would be put in precarious
\nposition. A subsequent step taken by the
\nGovernment of India was, therefore, illegal and
\nimproper, and it was incumbent on the respondents
\nto ensure the benefits, which otherwise the
\npetitioners and similarly situated employees would
\nhave received.\n<\/p>\n
6. The petitions stated that the third
\nrespondent, by his letter dated November 1, 2001 to
\nrespondent No. 1, stated that the options were
\nexercised by the employees in 1989, and there was
\nno question of giving re-option to those employees
\nwho had opted for the  pro-rata pension\/lumpsum
\namount, which was accepted by VSNL. Regarding Rule
\n37-A of the Rules, the petitions were not
\nentitled to such benefits. It was, however, stated
\nthat the issue should be referred to the Ministry
\nof Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
\nrespondent No. 2 herein, as to whether it would be
\nfeasible to provide re-option to such employees.
\nAccording to the petitioners, no decision had been
\ncommunicated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the
\nquestion of re-option, and hence, they were
\nconstrained to approach this Court. It was,
\ntherefore, submitted that a preliminary direction
\nmay be issued to the respondents to afford an
\nopportunity of re-option to the petitions and
\nsimilarly situated employees, who were working with
\nthe Government and absorbed with VSNL, and to allow
\npensionary and other benefits as if they were
\nGovernment Employees.\n<\/p>\n
7. An affidavit-in-reply is filed by VSNL,
\nrespondent No.3 herein. A preliminary objection
\nhas been raised in the counter-affidavit that the
\nthird respondent could not be said to be
\n‘authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the
\nConstitution, and hence, it is not subject to the
\njurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution. It was stated that respondent No.3
\nno longer remained a Government Company, and the
\ncontrol and supervision of the Company was not with
\nGovernment of India. The Government of India was
\nholding 52.97% of the shares of the third
\nrespondent, but was divested of 25% of the
\nshareholding to Tata Group of Companies by sale of
\nsuch shares on February 6, 2002 in furtherance of
\nits policy of disinvestment. It was, therefore,
\nprivatised, and the Government of India handed over
\nmanagement of VSNL to the Tata Group. At present,
\nthe Government of India is having only 26.12% of
\nthe shareholding, and the Tata Group owns nearly
\n45% of the shares of the third respondent. VSNL
\nis, therefore, not amenable to Writ Jurisdiction of
\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n
8. It was also stated that the third
\nrespondent was set up as a wholly-owned Government
\nPublic Sector Company in 1986; but in 1989,
\noptions were offered to the petitions and
\nsimilarly situated employees whether they were
\ninterested in getting themselves absorbed with the
\nthird respondent or would get themselves
\ntransferred to the Surplus Staff Cell for
\ndeployment against possible vacancies available in
\nother Government Offices. The petitions and
\nseveral other employees exercised the option for
\nabsorption with VSNL, and they cannot make
\ngrievance against such an action. They were
\nthereafter governed by the terms and conditions of
\nthe option and absorption with VSNL. When it is
\nnot the case of the petitioners that there was any
\nbreach by the third respondent so far as the terms
\nand conditions of the absorption are concerned, no
\nprayer can be granted in their favour.\n<\/p>\n
9. Referring to the decision of the Supreme
\nCourt in the affidavit-in-reply in  Balco Employees
\nUnion (Regd.) v.  Union of India and Ors.,<\/a> , it was submitted that when persons seek
\nand get employment with a company registered under
\nthe Companies Act, it should be presumed that they
\naccept the right of the Directors and Shareholders
\nto conduct the company in accordance with law; and
\nsuch employees have no vested right in the
\nemployer-company continuing to be a Government
\nCompany or ‘other authority’ for the purpose of
\nArticle 12 of the constitution.\n<\/p>\n
10. The deponent has also stated;\n<\/p>\n
  “In any event the retirement benefits in
\nVSNL remain the same after privatisation
\nas they were before privatisation.”\n<\/p>\n
11. It was, therefore, submitted that the
\npetitioners have no case; there was no right in
\ntheir favour to seek re-option; nor there was
\ncorresponding duty on the third respondent to offer
\nsuch re-option; and the petitions were liable to
\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
12. An affidavit-in-reply is also filed by the
\nAssistant General Manager (Legal) of respondent
\nNos. 1 and 2, wherein the facts stated and
\ncontentions raised on behalf of respondent No. 3
\nhave been reiterated. It was stated that options
\nwere offered to the employees, who were taken on
\ndeemed deputation with VSNL, and such options were
\nexercised by the employees. The terms and
\nconditions of the options were also disclosed.
\nThey were also informed that if they would not
\nfavour absorption with VSNL, their names would be
\ntransferred to the Surplus Staff Cell for
\ndeployment against possible vacancies available in
\nother Government Offices. It was expressly
\nstated that option, once exercised, shall be
\nfinal”. The employees exercised their option to be
\nabsorbed by VSNL and for receiving retirement
\nbenefits available under VSNL. They also got  pro-rata
\nretirement benefits for services rendered
\nunder the Government in the form of being able to
\ndraw  pro-rata monthly pension or a lumpsum amount
\nin lieu of 100% pro-rata pension paid in 1995.\n<\/p>\n
13. The deponent then stated that the
\npetitioners and other employees are now seeking to
\ncontend that at the time of exercising their
\noption, they were not aware that the Government
\nwould disinvest its shareholding of respondent No. 3
\nor respondent No. 3 would be privatised; and,
\ntherefore, they should be allowed to re-opt for
\nreceiving Government pensionary benefits. When a
\npolicy decision has been taken by the Government,
\nand the rights of the petitioners remained
\nunaffected after exercise of option, they cannot
\ncontend that the action of the Government is
\nillegal or contrary to law. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
\nalso placed reliance on  Balco Employees’ Union
\n(Regd.). Regarding Rule 37-A, it was the case of
\nthe first and second respondents that the
\npetitioners and other similarly situated employees
\nare not entitled to the said benefit by going back
\non their options which were exercised in 1989,
\nparticularly when it was specifically stated that
\nexercise of the option was final. The petitioners,
\nin fact, wanted to approbate and reprobate, which
\ncould not be allowed. It was, therefore, prayed
\nthat the petitions be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
14. In affidavits-in-rejoinder, the
\npetitioners have reiterated what was stated in the
\npetitions and controverted all the facts stated and
\ncontentions raised in the affidavit-in-reply.\n<\/p>\n
15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
16. So far as the preliminary contention
\nregarding maintainability of the petitions is
\nconcerned, the learned counsel for the third
\nrespondent drew our attention to an order passed by
\na Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
\nNo. 5233 of 2002 decided on October 22, 2002,
\nwherein it was observed by the Division Bench that
\nVSNL is no longer a Government Company; and the
\ncontrol and management of the company is not with
\nthe Government of India. “It is doubtful whether a
\nwrit petition would lie against VSNL.”\n<\/p>\n
17. The leaned counsel for the petitioners
\nmay be right in submitting that what was observed
\nin the above order was that it is ‘doubtful’
\nwhether a writ petition against VSNL would lie. It
\nis, however, not finally concluded by a judgment
\nthat such a petition would not be maintainable.
\nBut from the facts, and particularly from the
\naffidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 3, it is clear
\nthat the Tata Group owns nearly 45% of the
\nshareholding of VSNL, and the Government owns only
\n26.12% of the shareholding. In the facts and
\ncircumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that
\nthe contention raised by the learned counsel for
\nthe respondents has no force.\n<\/p>\n
18. But even otherwise, in our opinion, the
\npetitioners are not entitled to any relief, and
\nhence, without expressing final opinion as to
\nmaintainability or otherwise of the petitions, we
\nhave considered the case on merits.\n<\/p>\n
19. It is undisputed fact that VSNL was a
\nwholly-owned Government Company at one time. It is
\nalso not in dispute that the petitioners and
\nsimilarly situated persons were working with VSNL.\n<\/p>\n
20. On July 5, 1989, the Ministry of
\nPersonnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department
\nof Pension & Pensioners Welfare, Government of
\nIndia, issued an office memorandum, which dealt
\nwith settlement of pensionary terms, etc., in
\nrespect of Government Employees transferred  en
\nmasse to Central Public Sector Undertakings\/Central
\nAutonomous Bodies on the terms and conditions
\nmentioned in the said memorandum. It dealt with
\nPermanent Government Servants, who had opted to
\nretain pensionary benefits available to them under
\nthe Government Rules or to be governed by rules of
\nPublic Sector Undertakings\/Autonomous Bodies. It
\nwas also provided that the said option would be
\navailable to quasi-permanent and temporary
\nemployees after they would be confirmed in Public
\nSector Undertakings \/ Autonomous Bodies. It
\ncovered those Permanent Central Government
\nServants, who had completed ten years or more of
\nservice and opted for retirement benefits of Public
\nSector Undertakings \/ Autonomous Bodies. It dealt
\nwith those Permanent Government Servants with less
\nthan ten years of service, quasi-permanent and
\ntemporary employees, who opted for the Rules of
\nPublic Sector Undertakings \/ Autonomous Bodies.
\nThus, detailed provisions were made by the
\nGovernment of India with regard to permanent
\nGovernment Servants, who had completed ten years or
\nmore of service with the Government and opted for
\nretirement benefits of Public Sector
\nUndertakings \/ Autonomous Bodies. Similarly,
\nprovisions were made for Permanent Government
\nServants with less than ten years of services,
\nquasi-permanent employees and temporary employees
\nwho have opted for rules of Public Sector
\nUndertakings \/ Autonomous Bodies.\n<\/p>\n
21. Similarly, a memorandum had been issued by
\nVSNL on December 11, 1989, giving notice to the
\nemployees working with VSNL on deputation calling
\nfor their options to be absorbed with VSNL or to
\nremain with the Government. Such options were to
\nbe exercised on or before December 27, 1989. The
\nterms and conditions of options were annexed to the
\nmemorandum. It was clarified that any employee who
\nwould not opt for absorption or would not intimate
\nhis or her intention of not becoming a regular
\nemployees of VSNL would be “deemed to have been
\nabsorbed” in VSNL with effect from January 1, 1990.
\nThe name of the person who would not opt in favour
\nof absorption would be transferred to the Surplus
\nStaff Cell for deployment against possible
\nvacancies available in other Government Offices.\n<\/p>\n
22. Clause 4 of the memorandum then stated-\n<\/p>\n
  “Option once exercised shall be final.”\n<\/p>\n
23. The terms and conditions of such
\nabsorption have been mentioned in Annexure-I,
\nClause 2 dealt with “Pensionary Benefits”, and it
\nprovided that the permanent Government servants
\nwould have an option to retain pensionary benefits
\navailable to them under the Government rules or to
\nbe governed by the rules of VSNL. Such option
\nwould also be available to quasi-permanent or
\ntemporary employees after they would be confirmed
\nin VSNL. It was also stated that permanent
\nGovernment servants with less than ten years of
\nservice, quasi-permanent employees and temporary
\nemployees, who had opted for the rules of VSNL,
\nwould be entitled to certain benefits and permanent
\nGovernment servants, who had completed ten years or
\nmore of service, and who would opt for retirement
\nbenefits of VSNL, would receive  pro-rata retirement
\nbenefits for the service rendered under the
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
24. From the above discussion, it is amply
\nclear to us that in 1989, a policy decision was
\ntaken by the Central Government with regard to
\nconferment of benefits to those employees who were
\nworking with the Government and who were  en masse
\ntransferred to Central Public Sector Undertakings \/
\nCentral Autonomous Bodies. They were asked to
\nexercise their option by giving an opportunity for
\nsuch benefits. It is also on record that a similar
\nmemorandum was issued by VSNL in December, 1989 to
\nthe employees who were working with the Government
\nand  en masse transferred to respondent No. 3.
\nRegarding terms and conditions of retiral benefits,
\ndetailed provisions have been made in the annexure,
\nwhich was supplied with the option form. The
\nemployees were expressly told that they were
\nrequired to exercise such option within a
\nstipulated period. Finally, they were informed
\nthat an option, once exercised, would be final. It
\nis not even the case of the petitioners that
\noptions were not exercised by them.\n<\/p>\n
25. In our opinion, the contention raised on
\nbehalf of the respondents is well-founded and must
\nbe upheld that once the option was exercised in
\n1989, and as per the terms and conditions of the
\noption, such exercise of option was to be treated
\nas final, it would be too late, after more than ten
\nyears, to contend that they would not be bound by
\nexercise of option or that re-option should be
\nallowed to them. That contention, therefore,
\ncannot be upheld, and is hereby rejected.\n<\/p>\n
26. Regarding the contention that employees,
\nwho had not completed ten years, were not allowed
\nto exercise the option with regard to pensionary
\nbenefits, it may be stated that even when they were
\nin the Government service, when VSNL was a
\nGovernment Company, they were not entitled to such
\nbenefits. Reading the memorandum also, it
\nbecomes abundantly clear that the persons, who had
\nnot completed ten years of service with the
\nGovernment, were not entitled to pensionary
\nbenefits. The option, which was allowed by the
\nGovernment, and to be exercised by the employees,
\nwas in respect of those employees who had completed
\nten years or more of service and quasi-permanent
\nemployees and temporary employees, who would be
\nentitled to such benefits after they would be
\nconfirmed in the Public Sector or Autonomous
\nBodies. Since the petitioners and similarly
\nsituated persons, who had not completed ten years
\nof service, were not entitled to such benefits even
\nunder the Government they cannot make grievance
\nfor pensionary benefits. Moreover, as observed
\nhereinabove, the third respondent has specifically
\nstated in the affidavit-in-reply that retirement
\nbenefits in VSNL would remain the same after
\nprivatisation as they were before privatisation.
\nHence, even on that ground, the grievance of the
\npetitioners is ill-founded and cannot be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
27. Third ground, which was pressed in service
\nin the petitions as well as at the time of hearing,
\nwas that when the options were sought from the
\npetitioners and other similarly situated employees
\nin 1989, they were of the view that the status of
\nVSNL would remain the same. It was at a subsequent
\nstage that the Government of India disinvested a
\npart of share capital in VSNL in favour of a
\nprivate party (the Tata Group), which affected
\nseveral employees, and hence, the petitioners are
\nentitled to re-opt Government benefits by refunding
\nthe amount received by them from the Government.
\nIt is also contended that the Government has not
\ntaken sufficient care to safeguard and protect
\ninterest of the employees, which would be contrary
\nto Rule 37-A of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
28. In this connection, in our view, the
\nrespondents were right in relying upon  Balco
\nEmployees’ Union (Regd.). Almost in similar
\ncircumstances, the Court held that in economic
\npolicy mattes, it is for the State to take
\nappropriate decision, and the Court would not
\nembark upon wisdom or otherwise of such policy. In
\nthat case, too, almost similar safeguards have been
\nprovided, and the Apex Court upheld the action of
\nthe authorities.\n<\/p>\n
29. In paragraph 47, 48 and 49, the Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n
“47. Process of disinvestment is a policy
\ndecision involving complex economic
\nfactors. The courts have
\nconsistently refrained from
\ninterfering with economic decisions
\nas it has been recognised that
\neconomic expediencies lack
\nadjudicative disposition and unless
\nthe economic decision, based on
\neconomic expediencies, is
\ndemonstrated to be so violative of
\nconstitutional or legal limits on
\npower or so abhorrent to reason, that
\nthe courts would decline to
\ninterfere. In matters relating to
\neconomic issues, the Government has,
\nwhile taking a decision, right to
\n“trial and error” as long as both
\ntrial and error are bona fide and
\nwithin limits of authority. There is
\nno case made out by the petitioner
\nthat the decision to disinvest in
\nBALCO is in any way capricious,
\narbitrary, illegal or uninformed.
\nEven though the workers may have
\ninterest in the manner in which the
\nCompany is conducting its business,
\ninasmuch as its policy decision may
\nhave an impact on the workers
\nrights, nevertheless it is an
\nincidence of service for an employee
\nto accept a decision of the employer
\nwhich has been honestly taken and
\nwhich is not contrary to law. Even a
\ngovernment servant, having the
\nprotection of not only Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but also
\nof Article 311, has no absolute right
\nto remain in service. For example,
\napart from cases of disciplinary
\naction, the services of government
\nservants can be terminated if posts
\nare abolished. If such employee
\ncannot make a grievance based on Part
\nIII of the Constitution or Article
\n311 then it cannot stand to reason
\nthat like the petitioners, non-government
\nemployees working in a
\ncompany which by reason of judicial
\npronouncement may be regarded as a
\nState for the purpose of Part III of
\nthe Constitution, can claim a
\nsuperior or a better right than a
\ngovernment servant and impugn its
\nchange of status. In taking of a
\npolicy decision in economic matters
\nat length, the principles of natural
\njustice have no role to play. While
\nit is expected of a responsible
\nemployer to take all aspects into
\nconsideration including welfare of
\nthe labour before taking any policy
\ndecision that, by itself, will not
\nentitle the employees to demand a
\nright of hearing or consultation
\nprior to the taking of the decision.\n<\/p>\n
“48. Merely because the workmen may have
\nprotection of Articles 14 and 16 of
\nthe Constitution, by regarding BALCO
\nas a State, it does not mean that the
\nerstwhile sole shareholder viz.\n<\/p>\n
Government had to give the workers
\nprior notice of hearing before
\ndeciding to disinvest. There is no
\nprinciple of natural justice which
\nrequires prior notice and hearing to
\npersons who are generally affected as
\na class by an economic policy
\ndecision of the Government. If the
\nabolition of a post pursuant to a
\npolicy decision does not attract the
\nprovisions of Article 311 of the
\nConstitution as held in  State of
\nHaryana v.  Des Raj Sangar,<\/a>  on the
\nsame parity of reasoning, the policy
\nof disinvestment cannot be faulted if
\nas a result thereof the employees
\nlose their rights or protection under
\nArticles 14 and 16 of the
\nConstitution. In other words, the
\nexistence of rights of protection
\nunder Articles 14 and 16 of the
\nConstitution cannot possibly have the
\neffect of vetoing the Government’s
\nright to disinvest. Nor can the
\nemployees claim a right of continuous
\nconsultation at different stages of
\nthe disinvestment process. If the
\ndisinvestment process is gone through
\nwithout contravening any law, then
\nthe normal consequences as a result
\nof disinvestment must follow.\n<\/p>\n
“49. The Government could have run the
\nindustry departmentally or in any
\nother form. When it chooses to run
\nan industry by forming a company and
\nit becomes its shareholder ten under
\nthe provisions of the Companies Act
\nas a shareholder, it would have a
\nright to transfer its shares. When
\npersons seek and get employment with
\nsuch a company registered under the
\nCompanies Act, it must be presumed
\ntat they accept the right of the
\nDirectors and the shareholders to
\nconduct the affairs of the company in
\naccordance with law and at the same
\ntime they can exercise the right to
\nsell their shares.”\n<\/p>\n
30. In our view, the cases on hand are similar
\nto employees of  Balco, and as held by the Supreme
\nCourt, such a decision cannot be said to be
\nillegal, unlawful or otherwise unreasonable. Since
\nthe employees were allowed to exercise option in
\n1989, they exercised such option, which was to be
\ntreated as final, and as more than ten years have
\npassed, they cannot ask for re-option on the ground
\nthat in 1989-90, they were under the impression
\nthat the status of VSNL would continue to remain as
\nGovernment company; and as there was change at a
\nsubsequent stage, the petitioners would be entitled
\nto re-option. As the action, which was taken
\nbefore more than a decide, was legal and valid, no
\nfault can be found, and the petitioners have no
\nright to make grievance.\n<\/p>\n
31. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion,
\nboth the petitions deserve to be dismissed, and are
\naccordingly dismissed. In the facts and
\ncircumstances, however, there shall be no order as
\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n
32.  The learned counsel for the petitioners
\nprayed that the Judgment and Order passed by us may
\nbe kept in abeyance so as to enable the petitioner
\nto approach the Supreme Court. The Prayer has
\nbeen strongly objected by the learned counsel for
\nthe respondents. In our opinion, no such prayer
\ncan be granted. Hence, prayer is rejected.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working … vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The … on 14 February, 2003 Equivalent citations: 2003 (4) BomCR 79, 2003 (2) MhLj 691 Author: C Thakker Bench: C Thakker, D Chandrachud JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Both the above petitions have been filed by the petitioner for an […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 14 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 14 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-23T21:32:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working … vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The … on 14 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-23T21:32:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":4180,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003\",\"name\":\"S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 14 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-23T21:32:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working … vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The … on 14 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 14 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 14 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-23T21:32:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working … vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The … on 14 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-23T21:32:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003"},"wordCount":4180,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003","name":"S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 14 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-23T21:32:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-v-vasaikar-presently-working-vs-union-of-india-uoi-through-the-on-14-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.V. Vasaikar, Presently Working … vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The … on 14 February, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50005\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}