The court emphasized the importance of the cause of action arising within its territorial jurisdiction for it to entertain a petition.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a. Quash the impugned order dated 08.09.2020 titled as “NON-ACCEPTANCE OF REQUEST FOR GRANT OF VRS” issued by the respondent rejecting the request for the benefits of Voluntary retirement Scheme and / or;

b. Direct the respondent to grant and extend the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme to the petitioner and / or;

c. Provide ad-interim/further protection from any corrosive action by the Respondent and /or;

d. grant any other relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by his counsel that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated September 08, 2020 whereby the respondent has not accepted the application of the petitioner for grant of voluntary retirement under the Bharat Petroleum Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2020 (‘Scheme of 2020’, for short).

3. Some of the facts relevant for the purpose of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent Corporation as a Group A (Officer Trainee) employee on August 01, 1988 and was posted at Mumbai. A perusal of the writ petition would reveal that the petitioner was granted promotions and was also transferred to various locations within the country. The last promotion was granted to the petitioner on April 01, 2016 when he was promoted to Group E of the Management Cadre. He was at the relevant point of time posted in Noida. That on June 05, 2018, he was transferred to Bina (Madhya Pradesh) as Chief Manager OPS (Indl.). Later on May 09, 2019 he was re-designated as Chief OPS, In-charge (INC) Bina. It is his case that on July 23, 2020, the respondent Corporation issued Scheme of 2020 for employees of the Corporation [excluding active Sportspersons (employees recruited as Sportsperson who are yet to be deployed in mainstream) and Board level Executive], who have completed 45 years of age. On July 24, 2020, the petitioner submitted his application for availing the benefit of Scheme of 2020.

4. According to him, the primary reason for seeking the voluntarily retirement was the health condition of his spouse. Finally on September 08, 2020 the impugned communication was issued whereby his application for seeking voluntary retirement was rejected. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is at variance with the scheme, inasmuch as the scheme signifies the termination of employer-employee relationship voluntarily by working in exchange of retirement benefits. According to him, the concept of voluntarily retirement does not leave any employer with any right or discretion to cause abrogation of fundamental rights.

5. That apart in order to fulfill his responsibility toward his medically unfit spouse, the petitioner having tendered the application for voluntarily retirement the same could not have been rejected by the respondent. He stated that many applicants in the same grade, age and qualification have been favoured, whereas the petitioner has been denied the benefit of the scheme. According to him, the non-acceptance of the request is also discriminatory, inasmuch as the respondent Corporation has accepted more applications of the employees of the non-management category as compared to the management category employees.

6. A Counter-affidavit has been filed and also contended by Mr. Pravin H. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in this Court on the ground that it lacks territorial jurisdiction. In other words, it is his submission that the Scheme of 2020 has been floated from the office in Mumbai and the petitioner is working in Bina (Madhya Pradesh), no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi as, even the impugned communication has