Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

OM PRAKASH CHOUHAN versus HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. & ORS.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


OM PRAKASH CHOUHAN v HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. & ORS. - SAW Case No. 847 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 5304 (2 November 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

--------------------------------------------------------

SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 847 of 2007

OM PRAKASH CHOUHAN

V/S

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. & ORS.

Mr. JP JOSHI, for the appellant / petitioner

Date of Order : 2.11.2007

HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.

HON'BLE SHRI MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J.

ORDER

-----

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

Perused the impugned judgment, and scheme of voluntary retirement Annexure R/1.

In our view, the scheme clearly stipulated that the request of the voluntary retirement could be withdrawn only upto cut off date being 7.10.2004 unconditionally, and if thereafter the request of voluntary retirement was desired to be withdrawn, that could be withdrawn only before the acceptance of the request of voluntary retirement, but then in that event, such withdrawal was to be not effective ipso facto, rather the management was entitled to consider the request of withdrawal of voluntary retirement on its own merits. This clearly shows, that after acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement, the scheme did not contemplate leaving any option available to the employee to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement thereafter. In the present case the request for voluntary retirement has been accepted on 18.11.2004, while the petitioner has chosen to withdraw this request on 23.12.2004 only. In that view of the matter, in view of the various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, relied upon by the learned Single Judge, the matter rests in the realm of contract only, comprised of the voluntary retirement scheme, and the things are to be considered only in accordance with the scheme. Precisely for this reason we have considered the matter in terms of the scheme, and in our view no option survives to the petitioner to withdraw the request of voluntary retirement in any case after 18.11.2004.

In that view of the of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. It is a different thing which need not be mentioned, that vide

Annexure R/4 the petitioner exercised option for refund of the contribution of provident fund. Likewise vide Annexure

R/5 the amount payable to the petitioner-appellant to the tune of Rs. 1,32,769/- was also sent to him arising out of

V.R.S. Scheme, and vide Annexure R/6 the petitioner had also received the service award (superannuation award).

Pleading in this regard taken in the reply has not been controverted.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily.

( MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /sushil/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.