GL SHARMA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 23rd January, 2024

+ W.P.(C) 2512/2018

GL SHARMA ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms. Padma Priya, Advocate
versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR …..Respondents

Through: Mr. Inder Singh Alag, Senior Advocate with Mr.Puneet Taneja, Mr.Manmohan Singh Narula and Mr.Amit Yadav, Advocates for R-2 Mr.Rakesh Kumar CGSC with Mr.Sunil, Advocate for R-1

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:
“(i) Pass a Writ of certiorari or any other writ, Order or Direction quashing the Order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 2;
(ii) Declare the Petitioner to be eligible to avail Voluntary Retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004;
(iii) Pass any other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

FACTUAL MATRIX
2. In the year 1981, the petitioner joined National Thermal Power Corporation Limited i.e., respondent no.2 at the post of Junior Accountant and was eventually promoted to the post of Manager (Legal), Kol Dam Hydro Power, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.
3. In the year 2000, the respondent no.2 vide circular bearing No.451/2000, dated 21st November, 2000, introduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter “VRS”). Pursuant to the implementation of the said scheme, the petitioner submitted his application, thereby; option for Voluntary Retirement, however, the respondent no.2 did not provide a response to the same.
4. Thereafter, vide circular dated 21st May, 2003 the respondent no.2 re-introduced the VRS and in light of the same, the petitioner furnished a fresh application dated 25th August, 2003 to the competent authority, thereby, seeking voluntary retirement under the said scheme alongwith a request for certain relaxations under thereto.
5. Subsequently, the petitioner’s application under the VRS was rejected by the competent authority vide letter dated 30th September, 2003. Thereafter, the petitioner assailed the aforesaid letter before the High Court of Gujarat in SCA No. 6787/2004, however, the petition was rejected vide order dated 18th June, 2004. In light of the aforesaid, dismissal order, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent no.1 i.e, the Ministry of Power, Union of India dated 16th October, 2004, thereby, seeking reconsideration of his request for Voluntary Retirement under the VRS.
6. Further, vide circular bearing CHRC No. 540/2004, dated 1st December, 2004 was issued, with slight modifications in respect of introduction of an “additional condition” and “eligibility condition”, whereby, the individual option for voluntary retirement under the VRS should have completed a minimum of 10 years of service with the respondent no.2, completed 50 years of age and additionally completed a prescribed length of service as under their existing grade.
7. Subsequently, on 5th January, 2005, the petitioner submitted his application seeking voluntary retirement under the 2004 VRS scheme on the ground of his ill health, however, vide letter dated 31st January, 2005 the Manager (HR) of the respondent no.2, informed the petitioner that he was not found eligible for consideration under the VRS and hence his application had not been forwarded to the Corporate Centre.
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid rejection, the petitioner submitted an application dated 25th January, 2005 to the Deputy General Manager (HR), Kol Dam Project of the respondent no.2, thereby, requesting that his application may be forwarded to the ‘competent authority’ under the VRS 2004. Thereafter, an inter-office memo dated 19th January, 2005 was circulated, whereby, it was communicated that the VRS would conclude on 31st January, 2005 and the applications of the individuals seeking benefit under the same would be forwarded to the HR department for further examination.
9. Further, vide letter dated 2nd June, 2005 the Manager (HR) of respondent no.2 informed the petitioner that his application had been rejected after being duly examined by the competent authority. Subsequently, vide letter dated 19th October, 2005 the petitioner requested the respondent no.2 to provide reasons for rejecting his application for voluntary retirement, however there was no response at the hands of the respondent no.2.
10. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred writ petition bearing CPW No. 74/2006, before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, inter alia praying for grant of voluntary retirement and other retirement benefits applicable as per the “NTPC Voluntary Retirement Scheme, notified vide circular dated 1st December, 2004.
11. Meanwhile, in the year 2006, the petitioner was unable to continue his job with respondent no.2, due to his prevalent health conditions. Subsequently, in the year 2008, the respondent no.2 filed its counter affidavit before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, thereby submitting that the petitioner was considered to be ineligible for VRS since he did not qualify the criteria laid down in Clause 3.2.2 of the VRS 2004 i.e., the petitioner had not completed six years of service as a Grade 5 employee and had not attained the age of 50 years.
12. The aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 25th June, 2012, by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the petitioner preferred LPA No. 400/2012 before the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which was subsequently dismissed vide order dated 27th September, 2013.
13. The petitioner then challenged the aforesaid order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No. 24093/2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 25th April, 2017, with directions to the petitioner to present his case before the concerned Chairman and Managing Director (hereinafter “CMD”) and directions to the CMD to reconsider the representation of the petitioner.
14. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the petitioner made a representation dated 17th May, 2017 whereby the petitioner presented his case submitting to the effect that he had fulfilled the eligibility criteria for availing VRS except that of Grade service. Additionally, the petitioner also sought certain statistical information regarding the grant of relaxation under the VRS provided to certain individuals by the respondent no.2.
15. Subsequently, on 27th June, 2017 the petitioner presented his case in person before the CMD of the respondent no.2, however the petitioner’s representation was rejected vide order dated 4th July, 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 14th July, 2017 seeking review of the aforesaid order which was rejected vide letter dated 30th August, 2017.
16. Aggrieved by the rejection of the aforesaid application, for it being in non-compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner filed an application bearing M.A. No. 792/2017 in CA No. 5628/2017, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was disposed of vide order dated 8th September, 2017 in terms that the application stood dismissed as withdrawn.
17. Aggrieved by the order dated 4th July, 2017, by virtue of which the petitioner’s representation filed before the CMD was rejected, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition.
SUBMISSIONS
(On behalf of the petitioner)
18. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 4th July, 2017 is against the law in as much as it fails to comply with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25th April, 2017
19. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 4th July, 2017, is in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since the respondent no.2 has failed to treat the petitioner in the same manner as its other employees, thereby, not granting him the benefits as under the VRS.
20. It is submitted that in terms of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25th April, 2017 the respondent no.2 was directed to consider the petitioner’s case afresh, however, the respondent no.2 failed to comply with the directions so passed.
21. It is submitted that the order dated 25th April, 2017 was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of the fact that relaxation in grade service was extended during the VRS 2003, to a similarly situated individual i.e., Mrs. O. Savithri and the counsel on behalf of the respondent no.2 submitted that the CMD will reconsider the case of the petitioner and matter of relaxation afresh.
22. It is submitted that the action of the respondent is contrary to the order dated 25th April, 2017, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court since the respondent no.2 failed to allow the petitioner a relaxation of the requirement of six years of service whereas the actual requirement was that of four years and one month of service in the relevant grade. Moreover, the petitioner should have been granted the said relaxation as a matter of equity with the similarly placed individual i.e., Mrs. O. Savithri.
23. It is further submitted that as per the RTI filed by the petitioner, it is evident that the respondent no.2 has granted voluntary retirement to all employees who have applied for the said retirement from time to time, however, the same benefit has been denied to the petitioner time and again.
24. It is submitted that the right to know is an essential concomitant of the fundamental rights of any person. The petitioner had repeatedly urged the competent authority to provide the relevant information pertaining to relaxation granted to other information, however the said information was never provided to the petitioner.
25. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 4th July, 2017 does not provide any information with regard to cases wherein similarly placed individuals were granted relaxation and subsequently were allowed to seek voluntary retirement. The concealment of such information clearly shows malafides at the hands of the respondent no.2, since the said information is crucial for determination of this case.
26. It is also submitted that the petitioner is only seeking the benefit as under VRS due to adverse health conditions and denial of voluntary retirement would tantamount to violation of his fundamental rights.
27. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 has acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner since despite repeated requests; it failed to forward the petitioner’s request to the competent authority in order to take a decision in accordance with the law.
28. It is further submitted that the respondents have failed to take into consideration that the eligibility criteria as under the VRS was never treated as a mandatory criterion, more so, even if the said criteria is mandatory, the eligibility criteria in grade service in Clause 3.2 stands to be merely an additional criterion, which may be relaxed provided the individual has completed 50 years in age.
29. It is submitted that the authority in question erred by ignoring the criteria of relaxation, thereby no treating the petitioner at par with individuals granted the said relaxation.
30. It is submitted that relaxation of a condition is an exercise of discretion and ought to be done in appropriate cases in an appropriate manner.
31. It is submitted that there can be no time limit imposed on the period of time that may be relaxed since the condition of service of six years in a particular grade of service being the norm and relaxation of the said condition being the exception and capping the said time limit would amount to back-door entry in framing the scheme.
32. It is submitted in the year 2005, age relaxation of more than 10 years was granted to an employee, in the year 2002, there were more than 9 cases wherein relaxation in length of service in existing grade was granted and in the year 2003, the length of service for more than 4 years had been granted to several employees of the respondent.
33. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant petition may be allowed.

(On behalf of respondent)
34. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the instant petition submitting to the effect that the order dated 4th July, 2017 has been passed after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the petitioner’s case.
35. It is submitted that the respondent has acted in accordance with the law and no rights of the petitioner have been infringed upon in any manner and therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed since the same is bereft of any merits.
36. It is submitted that the petitioner’s application under VRS 2000 was duly considered and as per the procedure in place, the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria and hence his application was not processed further to the higher authorities.
37. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted his application for VRS under the VRS Scheme 2003, wherein the eligibility criteria was to have completed six years of service in the existing grade, however the petitioner did not meet the said criteria and his application was rejected by the competent authority. Moreover, the competent authority was apprised by the concerned department of Kawas Gas Power Project, Gujarat that the petitioner was overlooking several arbitration cases, which were nearing its conclusion and hence the petitioner could not be released till a suitable replacement was found.
38. It is submitted that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of serving the required length of six years of service in the existing grade i.e., Grade E-5, moreover, as per Clause 6 of the VRS 2004, the HR Department of the concerned project is to process the application for approval of the Competent Authority and in the event that the applicant does not satisfy the eligibility conditions of the said conditions, the application is not forwarded to the Competent Authority.
39. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria and the terms laid down in VRS 2004, therefore the petitioner’s application was not processed further in terms of Clause 6.1 of the VRS 2004, however at the special request of the petitioner, his application was forwarded to the competent authority but his application was rejected for non-satisfaction of the criteria as prescribed under the VRS 2004.
40. It is submitted that as per Clause 6 of the VRS 2004, the reason for rejection was communicated only pertaining to cases wherein the applications are rejected despite having fulfilled the eligibility criteria and other terms and conditions of the VRS 2004, however, in the case of the petitioner, he was never found eligible for voluntary retirement to begin with.
41. It is submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner tendered his resignation in terms of the NTPC Service Rules and accordingly his resignation was accepted by the respondent no.2.
42. It is submitted that vide order dated 25th April, 2017 the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave the petitioner liberty to approach the CMD of the respondent no.2 to consider his application afresh for grant of relaxation of the eligibility conditions, however, the said liberty was granted only in light of the statement rendered by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 whereby, they submitted that the respondent no.2 would reconsider the application of the petitioner.
43. It is further submitted that the VRS application is only an invitation to offer, and no employee has a vested right for approval of his application/offer for voluntary retirement, moreover, acceptance and rejection of the said application is only at the discretion of the employer and the terms conditions framed by them.
44. It is also submitted that the question of providing the petitioner with details regarding the alleged highest relaxation granted in grade or age or other parameters to other persons did not arise as general relaxation of 1.5 years was granted to all applicants of the VRS under the VRS 2004 and the said information was available to the petitioner.
45. It is submitted that the CMD considered the application of the petitioner afresh and took into consideration all documents thereby, considering it afresh however, the petitioner’s written submissions dated 6th July, 2017 filed before the CMD to consider the matter afresh, could not be considered since the respondent no.2 had already issued their order on 4th July, 2017.
46. It is submitted that the alleged highest relaxation granted in grade/ age or other parameters was that of 1.5 years in Grade Service and the said information was already provided to the petitioner in the proceedings before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
47. It is also submitted that the impugned order dated 4th July, 2017 was passed while placing reliance upon the order dated 25th June, 2012 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and moreover, the impugned order deals with the relaxation aspect, thereby, holding that no relaxation beyond the period of 1.5 years was granted to any applicant and there was no reason to grant relaxation any further than that.
48. It is further submitted that the VRS is not a matter of right and is entirely dependent upon the discretion of the employer, which may be exercised based upon various criteria’s based on administrative convenience and requirement of the employee.
49. It is also submitted that the impugned order dated 4th July, 2017 provided detailed reasoning for denying the application of the petitioner even though as per Clause 6 of the VRS the respondent no.2 is not obligated to provide any reasoning for rejecting an application when the said application does not satisfy the eligibility criteria to begin with.
50. It is further submitted that the only issue to be addressed was not with regards to the relaxation in Grade Service but also the fact that the petitioner was required at the respondent no.2 as he was handling various projects as a legal manager which were reaching a stage of conclusion in the near future and hence apart from the petitioner not meeting the eligibility criteria, his services were required, and therefore his application under the VRS was denied.
51. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the present petition may be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
52. This Court has heard the parties at length and perused the entire material placed on record by both the parties.
53. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed with the respondent no.2 at the post of Manager (Legal) and opted for the VRS as introduced by the respondent no.2 in the year 2000, however, his application was neither considered nor was any decision with regard to the same conveyed to him. Subsequently in the year 2003, the respondent no.2 reintroduced the said scheme under which the petitioner moved his second application and requested for grant of relaxation thereby citing medical reasons. However, the said application was rejected on the grounds that the petitioner did not fulfill the age criteria prescribed under the scheme. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner challenged the letter by which his application was denied before the High Court of Gujarat and inter- alia prayed that the respondent no.2 may be directed to provide reasons for the said rejection. The aforesaid petition was dismissed for the reasons that the petitioner did not make a written representation to the respondent no.2 thereby seeking reasons for rejection of his application. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for reconsideration of his request for voluntary retirement, however, received no response.
54. It is contended that the respondent no.2 once again re-introduced the VRS and the petitioner tendered another application for voluntary retirement, however, vide letter dated 13th January, 2005, the Manager (HR) informed the petitioner that his request for voluntary retirement was found to be ineligible for consideration and therefore, was not forwarded to the Corporate Centre. After making several representations, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. 74/2006 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner’s case was examined at the corporate level and he was found ineligible for voluntary retirement. Subsequently the petitioner preferred LPA No. 400/2012 which was dismissed wide order dated 27th September, 2013.
55. It is further contended that the petitioner filed a special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) 24093/2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 25th April, 2017 with directions to the respondent no.2 to consider the petitioners case afresh in accordance with the law. In light of the aforesaid order, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the respondent no.2 putting forth his contentions and seeking certain relevant statistical information from the respondent no.2. Thereafter, the petitioner presented his case in person before the CMD of respondent no.2, however, the petitioner’s application was rejected wide impugned order dated 4th July 2017. The said rejection was on the grounds that relaxation in grade service cannot be granted beyond 1.5 years, the case of similarly situated individual related to the 2003 scheme, the circumstances of the petitioner’s case do not warrant relaxation beyond 1.5 years and providing such relaxation at this stage would cause administrative difficulty in the respondent no.2 organization. Moreover, the petitioner had already resigned from the services of the respondent no.2 in the year 2006.
56. The petitioner has contended that the respondent no.2 has acted in contravention of the order dated 25th April, 2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and passed the impugned order, without considering the case of the petitioner afresh. It is contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was aware about the relaxation in the service period granted under the scheme of 2004 i.e., 1.5 years as the same was pointed out by the counsel, representing the respondent no.2 therein. It is further contended that the CMD of the respondent no.2 must have reconsidered the matter afresh and could not have travelled beyond the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is contended that the CMD ignored the positive spirit of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and continued to dwell upon past developments which stood superseded by the aforesaid order. It is further contended that the petitioner is legally entitled for benefits of the VRS 2004 in terms of Clause 6 and Clause 24.2, however, the petitioner’s repeated requests seeking voluntary retirement were denied continuously by the respondent no.2. Aggrieved by the continuous rejection. The petitioner has preferred the present petition.
57. In rival submissions, it has been contended by the respondent no.2 that the voluntary retirement is not a matter of right but merely an invitation and the applications filed by the employees seeking voluntary retirement constitute an offer, which may or may not be accepted subject to the discretion of the authorities under the VRS. It is contended that the application of the petitioner was initially rejected for not satisfying the conditions laid down by the said scheme. Thereafter, the application was once again considered, however the petitioner could not have been granted relaxation for more than 1.5 years as a result of which the petitioner’s application was rejected again. It is further contended that grant of VRS cannot be a matter of judicial review as acceptance or rejection of an application under the said scheme is the decision was left to the employer as per the requirements or needs of the organization, moreover, the employer is best aware of the requirement of need of retaining employees or allowing them to exit the services. It is further contended that the relaxation in grade service beyond the period of 1.5 years was not permissible under the VRS 2004.
58. In light of the following discussions, this Court will now adjudicate the present petition limited to the following issues:
i. Whether the impugned order dated 4th July, 2017 is in contravention with the order dated 25th April, 2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court?
ii. Whether the petitioner can avail voluntary retirement as per the VRS 2004?
59. In order to adjudicate the above flagged issue no. (i), it is imperative to analyze the impugned order dated 4th July, 2017 as well as the order dated 25th April, 2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the impugned order have been reproduced hereunder:

“In compliance with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24.04.2017 passed in above case filed by Sh. G. L. Sharma, I have exclaimed the representation dated 17.5.2017 as well as heard Sh. G. L. Sharma in person on 27.6.2017.
Under the 2004 VRS scheme, Sh. G. L. Sharma appelled for VRS on 05.01.2005. Vide letter dated 13.01.2005 from the concerned project, Sh. G. L. Sharma was informed that since he did not meet the eligibility criteria his application was not forwarded to the Corporate Centre for consideration. On 25.01.2005, Sh. G. L. Sharma requested for forwarding of his application for consideration of the competent authority. The major grievant of Sh. G. L. Sharma in the instant case is that despite of its request for consideration of his case on the aspect of relaxation in grade service, the case was never examined by the competent authority. Sh. G. L.  Sharma also submitted that relaxations in grade service were granted to a number of other employees.

Initially Sh. G. L. Sharma had approached Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla with a prayer for grade of VRS as per VRS scheme- 2004 and the payment of retirement benefits apart from seeking striking down of minimum age and grade service criteria prescribed under the subject scheme.
Having examined the issue in detail as well as perusing the record of VRS cases of 2004 scheme, especially on the aspect of relaxation the petition of Sh. G.L. Sharma was dismissed by hon’ble High court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla vide order dated  25.06.2012  while  disallowing the request of Sh. G.L. Sharma , Hon’ble High court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla noted that under the 2004 VRS scheme for which the petitioner has  approached the court, no relaxation beyond the criteria fixed by the CMD ,NTPC limited has been allowed to any of the employees who had sought VRS under the 2004 scheme.
The above judgement was affirmed by the division bench of Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla finally, Sh. G.L. Sharma was approached Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The case was heard by honourable Supreme Court on 25.04.2017 the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted Sh. G. L. Sharma to put forward his view point to under signed and the undersigned is required to consider the matter afresh, particularly on the issue of relaxation and pass an order in accordance with law.
The main premise, of Sh. G.L. Sharma is that many other employees have been granted relaxation in the prescribed eligibility norms and granted VRS. Sh. G.L Sharma sought the benefit of VRS by relaxing the eligibility norms, more particularly, In the grade service requirement. in his representation as well as personal hearing, Sh. G. L. Sharma requested for providing Information relating to relaxations granted Under VRS schemes that was introduced in NTPC from time to time. However, the same request goes beyond the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and in any case Hon’ble High court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in the writ has pursued the record pertaining to VRS scheme.
It is seen that Sh. G.L, Sharma had approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court praying for grant of VRS under 2004 scheme. However, during the course of hearing case of Ms. O. Savithri, relating to 2003 scheme was cited by the council for Sh. G.L. Sharma wherein relaxation was 
given.
Admittedly, The case of Ms.. O. Savithri pertains to 2003 scheme. Whereas, Sh, G.L, Sharma the present round of litigation has asked for grand of VRS under the 2004 scheme. Also unhappy with the denial of VRS under the 2003 scheme, G.L. Sharma had approach Hon’ble court of Gujarat. However, this writ petition on that account on that account was turned down, without any further challenge to the same.
Coming to the case of Sh. G.L, Sharma under the 2004 scheme, it is a matter of record that in no case relaxation beyond approved by the CMD, NTPC limited was granted in any case. Hence, in all fairness, it will be appropriate that qua the above scheme and the case, relaxation in grade service of more than 1.5 years is not permitted .
Before concluding, it is pertinent to mention here that in the instant case, Sh. G.L. Sharma did not fulfil the requirement of the scheme even after considering the relaxation in grade service of 1.5 years as extended in all the cases. Hence, the circumstances of the present case do not warrant grant of VRS by allowing any further relaxation. At this stage, any further relaxation may lead to administrative difficulties for the organisation. Lastly, SH. G.L, Sharma resigned from the services of NTPC limited in June 2006, during the pendency of the writ petition in the Hon’ble high court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla .

In the view of the above the request/ representation of Sh. G.L, Sharma  is regretted.”

60. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order makes it evident that the same was passed by the respondent no.2 after examining the representation dated 17th May, 2015 as well as the case presented by the petitioner in person thereto. It has been observed that vide letter dated 5th January, 2005, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under the VRS 2004, however, vide letter dated 13th January, 2005, the petitioner was apprised of the fact that his application was not forwarded to the corporate centre on the ground of the petitioner being ineligible for being considered under the said scheme. In pursuance of the aforesaid rejection, the petitioner requested that his application may be forwarded to the competent authority for consideration. It is further observed that the main grievance of the petitioner lies in the fact that despite his repeated requests for voluntary retirement and grade relaxation, his application was never examined by the Competent Authority. While taking into consideration the matter in its entirety, it was observed that the petitioner had approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, thereby, seeking grant of voluntary retirement as per the VRS 2004 and payment of retirement benefits apart from seeking striking down of minimum age and grade service criteria as prescribed under the subject scheme, however, the aforesaid petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 25th June, 2012 on the ground that the respondent no.2 cannot grant age relaxation as the same belongs to the criteria already fixed by the CMD of the respondent no.2. It is further observed that the aforesaid order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was disposed of with directions to the petitioner to put his case before the competent authority and directions to the respondent no.2 to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and in accordance with the law.
61. As per the contentions on behalf of the petitioner, it is apparent that the crux of the matter lies in the fact that certain other employees have also been granted relaxation in the prescribed eligibility norms and their applications seeking were granted voluntary retirement as per the scheme under which they sought the same, moreover, in his representation as well as his personal hearing, the petitioner requested for certain information relating to the relaxation’s granted under the VRS introduced from time to time. However, the said request of grade relaxation goes beyond the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been relying upon the case of similarly placed individual i.e., Ms. O Savithri, however, her case pertains to the VRS 2003 and the dispute of the petitioner in the instant petition pertains to the VRS 2004. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot be granted relaxation beyond the relaxation approved by the CMD of the respondent no.2 i.e., 1.5 years cannot be granted. It is further contended that the petitioner did not fulfill the age requirement as per the VRS 2004 even after the relaxation of 1.5 years was granted and therefore, in light of the abovesaid discussions as well as the fact that the petitioner resigned from the services of the respondent no.2, the petitioner’s application was rejected.
62. Adverting to the order dated 25th April, 2017, by way of which the petitioner was directed to make his representation before the competent authority and the CMD of the respondent no.2 was directed to decide the case of the petitioner afresh. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order has been reproduced hereunder:
“This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 27thSeptember, 2013 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in L.P.A. NO.400 of 2012. The appellant-G.L. Sharma was working with the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.-respondent no.2 herein. The Corporation floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme which was operative between 1.12.2004 and 31.1.2005. On 5thJanuary, 2005, the appellant sought voluntary retirement under the said scheme.. The said scheme required 50 years of age and 6 years of service in the grade in which the incumbent was working at the relevant time. The appellant had not completed 6 years of service in the grade. He sought relaxation Of the said requirement which was not allowed. Therefore, his prayer was rejected. The High Court held since no relaxation was given to anyone else, the case of the appellant for such relaxation could not be accepted. During hearing, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that relaxation was given to one Mrs. O Savithri which relates to the 2003 Scheme.
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.2- National Thermal Power Corporation, fairly states that the C.M.D of the Corporation will reconsider the matter of relaxation afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appeal last within a period of two months from today.
In view of the above, the appellant is at liberty to put forward his viewpoint before the concerned C.M.D., within a period of four weeks from today, who may consider the matter afresh as above and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

63. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order makes it clear that the Special Leave Petition was disposed of with directions to the respondent to consider the matter afresh and in accordance with the law. The petitioner was also directed to make his representation before the CMD of the respondent no.2 for the said fresh consideration.
64. It is evident that the only direction provided to the parties was to consider the matter afresh, which was complied with since the petitioner was provided an opportunity to make a fresh representation and also present his case in person before the CMD of the respondent no.2. Moreover, the respondent no.2, passed a detailed order regarding the case of the petitioner, whereby, it was held that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for grant of voluntary retirement even after the relaxation of 1.5 years in grade service was applied and therefore, it cannot be said that the aforesaid order has been passed in contravention of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the impugned order suffers from no apparent illegality or lack of jurisdiction, moreover, the respondent no.2 has explained in detail the reasons due to which the petitioner’s case for voluntary retirement has been rejected. It is crystal clear that as per the requirement of the VRS 2004, the applicant should have completed 50 years of age and should have six years’ of service in the grade entitling him to be considered for voluntary retirement. The petitioner was short of the age limit by a few months; however, the main point of contention is the fact that the petitioner had only completed 1.5 years’ service in the grade as against the 6 years of service required in the E5 Grade.
65. At this juncture it is prudent to also analyze the judgment dated 25th June, 2012 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The relevant portion of the same has been reproduced hereunder:
“4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that his case was never considered at the corporate level by the Head Office and it was rejected at the project level itself. This argument Is totally unfounded. From the record, I find that the petitioner had sent various representations through one Dr. Ram Barot, Former Deputy Member of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to the Secretary, Ministry of Power and the Minister concerned. Thereafter, his case was examined at the corporate level and at the corporate level it was pointed out that in no case relaxation has been given for more than one and half years and therefore the matter was rejected. As far as the relaxation in other years is concerned, in my view, each year the relaxation is different and every year employer can adopt a different criteria for relaxation of the norms. This will depends on the fact situation of each year.
5. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly rejected. No costs.”

66. The petitioner’s primary grievance was with regard to the fact that his application was rejected at the project level and never considered at the corporate level, by the Head Office. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh found the aforesaid grievance to be unfounded on the ground that the petitioner sent numerous representations through one Dr. Ram Barot, Former Deputy Member of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and in light of the same, it has been held that the petitioner’s case had been examined at the corporate level and it was pointed out that the relaxation beyond the period of 1.5 years’ cannot be granted.
67. A mere examination of the aforesaid orders/judgments makes it evident that the Court’s have time and again considered the case of the petitioner with regards to grant of voluntary retirement and held that the petitioner could not have been granted relaxation beyond the approved relaxation of 1.5 years’ as had been approved by the CMD of the respondent no.2. Moreover, the petitioner was short of the age limit by a few months; however, the main point of contention is the fact that the petitioner had only completed 1.5 years’ service in the grade as against the six years of service required in the E5 Grade. Therefore, it cannot be held that the impugned order is in contravention with the order dated 25th April, 2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
68. Accordingly, issue no (i) stands decided.
69. Now adverting to the second issue at hand, i.e., whether the petitioner can avail voluntary retirement as per the VRS 2004. At this stage, it is apposite to delve into the intent with which the voluntary retirement scheme was introduced.
70. The respondent no.2 introduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), in the year 2000, which was known as NTPC Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, with the objective to achieve the optimum manpower utilization, to improve the overall skill level and to provide terminal benefits to employees as an inducement to retire before the actual date of superannuation. The scheme was to apply to all the regular employees i.e. in the category of workmen including supervisory and executives. The VRS was introduced vide circular dated 1st December, 2004 which was known as NTPC Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004, and was to remain in operation for two months commencing from 1st December, 2004. The benefit of the aforesaid scheme could be availed by employees in grades E1 to E7. In order to avail the benefits of the said scheme, the employees should have completed 50 years of age and should have completed the prescribed length of service in their existing grade. The benefits of the said scheme were ex-gratia payment equivalent to 60 days emoluments for each complete year of service, notice pay, medical benefits for the employee and spouse, balance in PF account, gratuity, cash equivalent of accumulated EL and HPL, travelling allowance, retention of residential accommodation as per the rules.
71. In the instant petition, the petitioner has contended that he may be granted voluntary retirement under the VRS 2004 despite being declared ineligible for the same. It is apposite for this Court to analyze the circular dated 1st December, 2004 whereby the VRS 2004 was introduced. The relevant portion of the same has been reproduced hereunder:

“NTPC VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME 2004
…3. ELIGIBILITY
3.1 Eligibility condition for non-executives. 3.1.1 A non-executives employee covered as at para 2.0 above and desirous of opting for Voluntary Retirement should have completed a minimum of 10 years of service in NTPC and should have completed 50 years of age.
3.2 Eligibility condition for executives:
3.2.1 An executive employee covered as at para 2.0 above and- desirous of opting for Voluntary Retirement should have completed a minimum of 10 years of service in NTPC and should have completed 50 years of age.
3.2.2 In addition, an executive employee should also have completed prescribed length of service in the existing grade as under:
xxx
6. PROCEDURE
6.1 The eligible employee who wishes to opt for voluntary retirement under this Scheme shall apply for the same in the prescribed format (Annexure II) to the Competent Authority through proper channel during the currency of the Scheme to the concerned HR Department. On receipt of application, the HR Department will process the application for approval of the Competent Authority after checking the eligibility and other terms and conditions of VRS, in case of executives, the Project/station HR Department shall process and forward the applications through the concerned Executive Director to Corporate HR Division for approval of the Competent Authority.
6.2 Provided that an employee who has given an application for voluntary retirement under this scheme shall not be allowed to withdraw the same subsequently except with the approval of the Competent Authority. The application submitted by an employee for Voluntary Retirement cannot be withdrawn after the Competent Authority has accepted the same and communicated acceptance in writing to him.
6.3 The Competent Authority shall have full and absolute discretion to accept the application of an employee for voluntary retirement. The Competent Authority will also have the right not to grant voluntary retirement to an employee for reason to be recorded in writing.”

72. The circular dated 1st December, 2004 clearly lays down the procedure which is to be followed while dealing with an application seeking voluntary retirement under the VRS 2004. Clause 6.1 clearly states that the employee seeking voluntary requirement is to apply for the same through the proper channel established by the said circular. The application is first received and vetted by the HR Department in order to ensure that the application is eligible to be forwarded further. Once the eligibility is checked by the HR Department, the application is forwarded to the Competent Authority for its approval. Further, as per Clause 6.3, the Competent Authority is vested with absolute discretion to accept or reject the application of an employee seeking voluntary retirement. However, in case of rejection, the employee is to be provided with reasoning in writing for the same.
73. In the instant case, it has been contended by the respondent no.2, that the petitioner’s application was found ineligible at the preliminary level i.e., vetting of the application by the HR Department since the petitioner had not met the required age criteria of 50 years and more importantly, had not completed six years of Grade Service. Since the petitioner’s application was found ineligible at the outset, the same was never forwarded to the Competent Authority for further scrutiny, therefore it cannot be stated that the respondent no.2 did not follow the procedure as laid down by the VRS 2004 while processing the petitioner’s application.
74. In so far as the contention regarding availing the benefit of VRS 2004 is concerned, it is a well settled law that the grant of voluntary retirement is not a matter of right and the power to grant or reject the same lies with the authority which has introduced the said scheme. The grant of VRS is a matter of discretion and cannot be taken as a matter of right. The law regarding the same is very well settled. In case titled Indian Overseas Bank v. Tribhuwan Nath Srivastava, (2011) 3 SCC 475, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that accepting or rejecting an application under the VRS is a matter of discretion since the authority is best aware of the administrative requirements of the organization. The relevant portion of the said judgment has been reproduced hereunder:
“24. The observations made in T.S.N. Raju [(2006) 7 SCC 664 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1727] do not mean that this Court endorsed or approved the discretion vested in the employer (be it the Port Trust or the bank) as absolute in the manner of an unruly horse prancing beyond the control of anyone or anything. In the 62nd year of the Republic, it is rather late in the day for the State or any of the State’s agencies or instrumentalities to claim absolute discretion, like the discretion of a despot or a discretion completely divorced from reasonableness.
25. But at the same time, it must also be realised that reasonableness is not something in the abstract. The reasonableness of a decision or an action can only be judged in the totality of the facts and circumstances and having regard to the object and purpose sought to be achieved. For example, if the object is to select someone for public employment or for promotion to a higher post, the only reasonable thing to do would be to select the most suitable and meritorious among the candidates. The selection of a person of inferior merit or someone who is not even eligible would be wholly unreasonable if the object is to choose the best as it should be in case of selection for public employment or promotion to a higher post. But in case an organisation undertakes manpower planning with a view to downsize the personnel and cut down the overhead costs, very different considerations would apply and in that case the application of the yardstick for selection for public employment or for promotion to a higher post would lead to results opposed to the very object of the exercise.
26. We feel that the High Court committed the fundamental mistake in completely misconstruing the object and purpose of the voluntary retirement Scheme. As wrongly assumed by the High Court, the object of the Scheme was not to reward the good officers or to punish the bad ones. Even though depending upon personal circumstances, voluntary retirement under the Scheme might have appeared to some individual officers as personally beneficial, it was not envisaged by the Bank as a means to give personal rewards or to punish individual employees by granting or refusing to grant voluntary retirement to them. The objective of the Scheme as stated in the circular issued by the Bank was “to adopt measures to have optimum human resources at various levels in keeping with the business strategies, skill profile to achieve balanced age and requirement of the Bank”.
27. In Bank of India v. K. Mohandas [(2009) 5 SCC 313 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 32] , one of us (Lodha, J.) had the occasion to examine the genesis and raison d’être of the voluntary scheme framed by the banks; in that judgment it was observed, in SCC paras 3, 4, 5 and 36, as follows: (SCC pp. 320-21 & 329)
“3. In the month of May 2000, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Banking Division), advised the nationalised banks to carry out detailed manpower planning as these banks were found to have 25% of their manpower as surplus. A Human Resource Management Committee was constituted to examine the said issue and to suggest suitable remedial measures.
4. The Committee so constituted observed that high establishment cost and low productivity in public sector banks affect their profitability and it was necessary for these banks to convert their human resources into assets compatible with business strategies. Inter alia, the Committee placed the draft voluntary retirement scheme with the Central Government that would assist the banks in their efforts to optimize their human resources and achieve a balanced age and skill profile in keeping with their business strategies.
5. With the approval of the Central Government, Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) circulated salient features of the draft scheme to the nationalized banks for consideration and adoption by their respective boards vide its letter dated 31-8-2000. The Board of Directors of each of the nationalized banks, keeping in view the objectives, considered the draft scheme and adopted it separately.
***
36. Any interpretation of the terms of VRS, 2000, although contractual in nature, must meet the test of fairness. It has to be construed in a manner that avoids arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the public sector banks who brought out VRS, 2000 with an objective of rightsizing their manpower. The banks decided to shed surplus manpower. By formulation of the special Scheme (VRS, 2000), the banks intended to achieve their objective of rationalising their force as they were overstaffed. The special scheme was, thus, oriented to lure the employees to go in for voluntary retirement. In this background, the consideration that was to pass between the parties assumes significance and a harmonious construction to the Scheme and the Pension Regulations, therefore, has to be given.”
(emphasis added)

28. Bearing in mind the object and purpose of the Scheme as explained in the decision in Bank of India [(2009) 5 SCC 313 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 32] it is not difficult to see how the competent authority in the Bank would deal with the applications for voluntary retirement made by individual officers; other things being equal between two applicants he would like to let go the one with the inferior service record and lower potential and consequently he would accept the application of the officer with the lower merit and may not accept the request of the officer with superior merit. This is for the simple reason that in the process of shedding surplus manpower no organization would like to lose its best people.

29. From a purely subjective point of view the decision of the competent authority may appear to be “unfair” or even a “punishment” to the officer with the superior merit, nevertheless it would be the proper and reasonable exercise of discretion in view of the basic objective of the Scheme. We are not unconscious that the denial of request for voluntary retirement to an officer in practice may result in souring of relationship between the officer concerned and the bank (as it actually happened in this case) and as a consequence the officer concerned in future may not show the same competence and efficiency in the discharge of his duties for which he was sought to be retained in service. But that is a matter of personnel management and the competent authority is expected to factor in such considerations while taking a decision on individual applications. Such considerations would certainly not be a ground for the court to interfere with the decision of the competent authority. The discretion vested in the competent authority as stipulated in Para 4 under the heading “General Conditions” (of the Scheme) must be understood in this way and not absolute in the sense of being completely uncontrolled, whimsical or capricious.
30. Seen in this light even the grant of voluntary retirement to an employee who may not be strictly eligible under the Scheme may not improve the claim of another applicant who might not only be eligible but with highly superior credentials. An employee facing a disciplinary proceeding and, therefore, ineligible under the Scheme may otherwise also be completely useless. The Bank may try to get rid of him by dropping the disciplinary proceeding or even by waiving the eligibility clause in his case. At worst the action of the Bank may be irregular or even invalid in case of that particular employee. But unlike a selection for appointment or promotion to a superior post, this in itself would not provide a ground to another employee (legible and with superior credentials) to claim retirement as a matter of right.
31. In this case, however, we need not go into that aspect of the matter because it was the definite case of the Bank before the High Court that no person ineligible under the Scheme was granted voluntary retirement. As regards the officers/employees who were allegedly allowed voluntary retirement even though they were given charge-sheets or show-cause notices in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, the Bank in its counter-affidavit had explained that the decision on their application for voluntary retirement was taken by the competent authority after “disposal” of the charge-sheets. The High Court brushed aside the plea by observing that charge-sheets were not “disposed of”; a charge-sheet may be recalled or a proceeding arising from the charge-sheet may lead either to exoneration or the finding of guilt of the employee concerned. It further observed that the statement was made for obfuscation of the matter in issue.
32. We are of the view that the High Court took a highly technical view of the matter. What perhaps was meant by the Bank was that the decision to accept their request for voluntary retirement was taken after the proceedings against those officers/employees were closed/dropped. Here, it may be recalled that this was quite in accordance with Para 10 of the “General Conditions”.
33. As regards the officers who were allegedly given special training and were, therefore, ineligible for voluntary retirement, only Mr Anthony Joseph, Pondicherry Branch, was in Scale IV i.e. in the same scale as the respondent. In regard to Anthony Joseph, the Bank in its rejoinder-affidavit denied that he was given training in foreign exchange. We see no reason not to accept the statement made by the Bank in this regard.
34. In light of the discussion made above, we are clearly of the view, that the Bank had properly appraised the respondent’s claim for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and its decision not to accept the request was within the legitimate exercise of discretion that did not warrant any interference by the High Court. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the judgment of the High Court coming under appeal is quite unsustainable.

75. Further, in case titled Board of Trustees, Vishakhapatnam Port Trust v. T.S.N. Raju, (2006) 7 SCC 664, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“25. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In our view, the order of the learned Single Judge is without jurisdiction and beset with material irregularities. The learned Single Judge ought to have seen that under the Scheme the Chairman of VPT has absolute right either to accept or not to accept the applications filed by the employees for retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme. The learned Single Judge also did not mention how there was discrimination between those who have been granted voluntary retirement and those who have not. The learned Single Judge in the case of Shri T.S.N. Raju (Respondent 1 herein) has not noticed that he had made a representation on 29-8-2000 addressed to the Chairman while he was in the category of CTOW and his application was not considered as he was the junior most Assistant Engineer. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered his application dated 27-4-2000 by which he applied while he was in the cadre of CTOW (Class III) to go on voluntary retirement. But by this time, the applications of other AEs who were senior in the order of receiving, were considered and, therefore, his application at this stage could not be considered as Shri T.S.N. Raju being the junior most AE among VRS applied AEs and his application dated 29-8-2000 is least in the order of seniority of application received for VRS. In any event, the learned Single Judge ought not to have issued the direction to the Department to accept the voluntary retirement of the respondents as on the date of their application and pass appropriate order. The learned Judge at any rate can only direct the Port Trust to consider their applications for voluntary retirement and pass appropriate orders. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the Court in issuing such direction. Likewise, the Division Bench also committed the same error in issuing the directions.”

76. Similarly, in case titled C.V. Francis v. Union of India, (2013) 14 SCC 486, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“13. It is well established that a voluntary retirement scheme introduced by a company, does not entitle an employee as a matter of right to the benefits of the scheme. Whether an employee should be allowed to retire in terms of the scheme is a decision which can only be taken by the employer company, except in cases where the scheme itself provides for retirement to take effect when the notice period comes to an end. A voluntary retirement scheme introduced by a company is essentially a part of the company’s desire to weed out the deadwood.”

77. A bare perusal of the aforesaid judgments makes it evident that the competent authority has the option to exercise their discretion while dealing with matters pertaining to grant of voluntary retirement. The said discretion may be inferred from the fact that the competent authority is best aware of the requirements of the organization in terms of manpower required etc. Moreover, voluntary retirement is not a matter of right but an invitation extended by the authority concerned which becomes an offer only when the application for the same is rendered by the employee seeking benefit of the same. Moreover, the Courts can merely direct an authority to consider an application seeking voluntary retirement, and cannot direct the authorities to accept an officer’s application seeking voluntary retirement.
78. Further, as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.V. Francis (Supra), voluntary retirement is not a right bestowed upon the employee seeking the benefit. The end decision regarding the grant of voluntary retirement rests with the employer unless the notice by way of which such scheme has been floated stipulates an exact date on which the said scheme would take effect.
79. In the instant petition, the petitioner’s application was rejected on the grounds of him being ineligible in terms of grade service and the same could not have been met even after granting him the relaxation as approved by the CMD of the respondent no.2. Moreover, the respondent no.2 followed the due procedure as established under Clause 6 of the circular dated 1st December, 2004 and the same may be inferred from the fact that the petitioner’s application was rejected at a preliminary level of checking the eligibility by the HR Department. Furthermore, the petitioner was short of the age limit by a few months; however, the main point of contention is the fact that the petitioner had only completed 1.5 years’ service in the grade as against the six years of service required in the E5 Grade. Additionally, the petitioner resigned from the services of the respondent no.2 w.e.f. June, 2006. In view of the facts and scenarios there appears to be no illegality in the procedure followed by the respondent no.2 while denying the petitioner voluntary retirement under the VRS 2004.
80. In view of Clause 6.1, 6.3, and the judgments cited, it is apparent that the respondent no.2 is vested with the power to accept or reject any application seeking voluntary retirement, contingent upon the requirements of the said organization and hence the petitioner’s prayer of availing the benefits under the VRS 2004 cannot be determined by this Court since the said process suffers from no patent illegality or jurisdictional errors.
81. Accordingly, issue (ii) stands decided.

CONCLUSION
82. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 4th July, 2007 has been passed after considering the case of the petitioner afresh, and affording him an opportunity to present his case before the Competent Authority, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25th April, 2007.
83. Additionally, the petitioner’s case has been considered time and again by different Courts and has arrived at the same conclusion that the petitioner is not eligible for voluntary retirement under the VRS 2004 and the subsequent resignation rendered by the petitioner makes him all the more ineligible for the grant of retirement benefits under the VRS 2004.
84. In view of the discussions of facts and law, this Court finds no force in the propositions put forth by the petitioner. It is held that the present writ petition is not a fit case for interference under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed since the same is bereft of any merits.
85. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.
86. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
87. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

(CHANDRA DHARI SINGH)
JUDGE
JANUARY 23, 2024/SV/DS/RYP

W.P.(C) 2512/2018 Page 1 of 37