High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Nand Lal v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 47933 of 2004  RD-AH 10883 (4 July 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47933 of 2004
Union of India and others...................................................Respondents
Hon. Tarun Agarwala,J.
Heard Sri S.D.Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.P.Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner applied for premature retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme floated by the respondent Corporation. The petitioner applied and the management issued a notice dated 28.4.2003 accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. It transpires that the respondent issued an order dated 20.5.2003 cancelling the acceptance of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that a mandamus should be issued to the respondent for payment of retirement benefits under the said scheme.
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of acceptance of the voluntary retirement was revoked by the Management by an order dated 20.5.2003 and the said order was communicated to the petitioner by placing it on the Notice Board. The learned counsel further submitted that subsequently upon the closure of the Mill, the retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act was offered to the petitioner on 9.7.2004 which he refused to accept. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not at all entitled for the benefit under the voluntary retirement scheme and that the petitioner was only entitled for payment of retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the respondent dated 20.5.2003 were never communicated to the petitioner.
From a perusal of paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, I find, that the averment that the order dated 20.5.2003 was pasted on the Notice Board and therefore, the petitioner had ample information is patently erroneous and cannot be relied upon inasmuch as the said averment has been sworn on the basis of the information received from the record. Such record is not available before the Court for its perusal nor any proof of this fact has been filed in the counter affidavit. In any case, it was incumbent upon the respondents to serve a copy of this order upon the petitioner since vital right was affected, which admittedly, has not been done in the present case. Consequently, the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was entitled for the closure compensation is not correct.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay the retirement benefit to the petitioner under the voluntary retirement scheme within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.