Once the relationship between the petitioner and the company was severed, the petitioner could not claim the benefits of voluntary retirement, even if the scheme had been subsequently extended to other employees.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The instant writ-petition has been filed inter alia not only questioning the order of rejection dated 06.08.2012 for grant of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefits but also for a direction upon the respondents to release VRS benefits in favour of the petitioner under the said Scheme along with an interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. The petitioner at the material point of time was working as an Assistant Manager (Administration) with the National Jute Manufacturers Corporation Limited (NJMC). According to the petitioner, since 2002 by reasons of financial crisis, NJMC could not pay the salaries for its staff on regular basis and the manufacturing process also came to a standstill. The NJMC was declared sick within the meaning of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, sometimes in the year 2002 and later it was decided to prematurely retire the employees by introducing Voluntary Retirement Scheme. From time to time, several Voluntary Retirement Schemes were introduced by NJMC for the willing employees. Unfortunately all such V.R. Schemes were limited to clerical and office staff and were not extended to the Executives.

3. The petitioner, however, expressing his despair at the state of affairs by an application dated 28th July, 2006, had claimed that despite the fact that the petitioner was expecting the VRS notice to be served on the Officers, the same having not been served, made a request for his immediate release from his assignment at NJMC. The said application was followed by a subsequent communication dated 28th August, 2006 wherein it was, inter alia, claimed that his mother was extremely ill who was residing at Dinhata, Cooch Behar and required the petitioner’s support. As such, he had requested the authorities to accede to his prayer and arrange to issue a formal order for acceptance of his premature retirement on VRS.

4. Record reveals that by a communication in writing dated 11th September, 2006, the petitioner was informed that in terms of his applications dated 28th July, 2006 and 28th August, 2006; the competent authority had acceded to his request for immediate premature retirement from the services of NJMC and accordingly, had released him with effect from 11th September, 2006 (A.N.).

5. The petitioner contends that although, he was disbursed the retiral dues on his premature release, however, no benefits accruing out of the V.R. Scheme was released in his favour. It is contended, in the circumstances as aforesaid, the petitioner was compelled to move a writ-petition before this Hon’ble Court which was registered as WP 853 (w) of 2010. Before affidavits could be exchanged, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Such fact would corroborate from the order dated 28th September, 2011 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

6. Since then, the petitioner had once again by letter dated 12th December, 2011 had made a detailed representation addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of NJMC, inter alia, praying for settlement of his VRS dues.

7. In response to such application, by communication in writing dated 6th August, 2012, the competent authority had informed the petitioner that he is not entitled to VRS dues after acceptance of premature retirement from NJMC.

8. Being aggrieved, the instant writ-petition has been filed.

9. Mr. Sanyal, learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner at no point of time had accepted premature retirement rather, applied for grant of VRS. When the petitioner was offered premature retirement from service with effect from 11th September, 2006, he had categorically recorded a protest that such separation was subject to his claim for voluntary retirement.

10. By drawing attention of this Court to an internal communication dated 7th August, 2005, exchanged between the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India and the Jute Commissioner & CMD, the petitioner submits that the Deputy Secretary had convey