Full Judgment
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and R.N. Prasad, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order dated 22nd August, 1995 on CWJC No. 10665 of 1994; Yogeshwar Kumar (Y. Kumar) v. Union of India and Ors.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioner was resisting action of his employer, Hindustan Fertiliser Limited, in accenting his request to voluntarily retire him under the scheme framed for this purpose on payment of all the dues in accordance with the scheme. He took voluntary retirement as also monetary benefits payable to him under the scheme. In the circumstances the learned Judge declined to interfere on the writ petition.
3. The petitioner has assailed the decision on the writ petition in the present Letters Patent Appeal.
4. The Court has heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant and the contesting respondent i.e. Hindustan Fertiliser Limited.
5. After having examined the records of the writ petition as also Letters Patent Appeal, this Court is of the opinion that the intention and conduct of the petitioner in filing the writ petition or for that matter the present appeal is inequitable and the petition is barred by rule of estoppel. After having taken the advantages of a voluntary scheme, accepting the voluntary benefits under the scheme and having taken retirement and released the accommodation, now to take up a stand that he has been retired wrongly and he should be re-instated does not appear to be justified.
6. The petitioner was not alone to seek voluntary retirement. There were other along within him. One record of 9-3-1994, Annexure 4, shows that there were one M.M. Pandey, Plant Engineer (I) and N.M.K. Sinha, Plant Manager who also applied for voluntary retirement along with the petitioner and received voluntary retirement and the consequential terminal benefits. These benefits were provident fund dues, gratuity payments, ex-gratia payment equivalent to one and half months emoluments (Pay + D.A.). Prior to seeking voluntary retirement all the possible earned leave
which was due to the petitioner he had already enashed.
7. Equity now is against the petitioner to take up a posture to challenge the voluntary retirement. In the circumstances, the learned Judge has committed no error in not granting relief to the petitioner on his writ petition.
8. A faint plea was made that Calcutta High Court had subsequently declared the scheme as ultra vires. This contention is not entirely correct. The scheme, which was declared as untral vires, was a scheme for Compulsory retirement and not the scheme for voluntary retirement.
9. In the circumstances, neither the petition nor the appeal has any merit.
10. The appeal is dismissed.