1. This order shall also govern the field of WP No. 91/2002 (Sayeed Khan v. M.P. Police Housing Corporation Ltd. and others); WP No. 3360/2002 (R.K. Shrivastava v. M.P. Police Housing Corporation and others); and WP No. 3445/2002 (M.L. Raidas v. M.P. Police Housing Corporation and another), since the common question is involved in all these petitions.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records for its kind perusal.

(ii) To quash the impugned scheme in Annexure P-9 and the order in Annexure P-13, by issuance of an appropriate writ or direction.

(iii) To restrain the respondents from winding up the Corporation i.e. respondent No.1 by issuance of an appropriate writ and or direction.

(iv) To command the respondents to continue the petitioner in service on his post of Sub- Engineer with all consequential benefits, by issuance of an appropriate writ and or direction.

(v) Any other relief deemed fit under the circumstances of the case may kindly be granted together with cost of this petition.

3. The petitioner was serving under the employment of M.P. Police Housing Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). There was a Cabinet decision to close down the Corporation. Eventually the Corporation gave notice to the petitioner directing petitioner to give his consent of voluntary retirement in writing necessarily before 31.1.2001, failing which necessary law will follow. Eventually the petitioner submitted the application for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted by the Corporation and the petitioner was voluntarily retired.

4. Later on, another decision was taken by the Cabinet not to close the Corporation and this order was passed on 4.2.2004. The contention of Shri D.K. Dixit and Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since there was a decision of the State Government to close the Corporation and the employees were directed to submit their application for obtaining voluntary retirement necessarily, therefore, under this pretext the application of voluntary retirement was submitted. Since later on the Cabinet took another decision not to close the Corporation vide its order dated 4.2.2004 arid the earlier orders dated 11.3.1998, 28.1.2000 and 7.6.2002 were set aside and it was directed to continue the existence of the Corporation, therefore it was obligatory on the part of the Corporation to take back the petitioner in service,

5. On the other hand Shri Ramesh Shrivastava and Shri J.L. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation have submitted that the petitioner submitted application for voluntary retirement which was accepted and therefore now they cannot ask for reinstatement merely on the ground that the decision has been taken by the Cabinet not to close the Corporation. In support of their contention, they placed reliance on the decision of Indore Bench in Smt. Babita Francis v. M.P. Police Housing Corporation Ltd. and another [WP No. 1040/2002 decided on 30.9.2002] which was later on affirmed by the Division Bench of Indore Bench in LPA No. 347/2002 on 2.12.2002.

6. The Corporation accepted the application of petitioner and directed that he shall be voluntarily retired with effect from 7.12.2001. Earlier to this date, the interim order was passed by this Court directing parties to maintain status quo. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner of WP No. 6189/2001, petitioner of WP No. 3360/2002 and petitioner of WP No. 3445/2002 were continuing in service on account of the interim order passed by this Court and this position is not disputed by the respondents. However, no interim order was passed in WP No. 91/2002.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that these petitions deserve to be allowed.