Skip to content


Pukh Raj JaIn Vs. Raj. Rajya Sahkari Spinning and Ginning Mills Fed. Ltd. and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Service

Court

Rajasthan High Court

Decided On

Case Number

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 983 of 2002

Judge

Reported in

RLW2003(4)Raj2548

Acts

Constitution of India - Article 226

Appellant

Pukh Raj Jain

Respondent

Raj. Rajya Sahkari Spinning and Ginning Mills Fed. Ltd. and anr.

Appellant Advocate

 Tribhuvan Gupta, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

 Rajesh Joshi, Adv. for Respondent No. 1 and; S. Mehta, Adv. for Respondent No. 2

Disposition

Writ petition allowed

Excerpt:


- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....relieve the petitioner under the voluntary retirement scheme (annex. p. 1) as per application of the petitioner dtd. 10.11.99 (annex. p.2).2. the facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under :(i) that the petitioner is the permanent employee of respondent no. 1 and working as accounts officer in spinfed spinning unit of gulab-pura. (ii) that respondent. no. 1 framed a scheme (annex. p/1) to retire its employees who seek voluntary retirement and that scheme (annex. p/1) was circulated by respondent no. 1 through its letter dtd. 18.8.99 (annex. p/1). (iii) that further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of voluntary retirement scheme (annex. p/1), the petitioner made a request for voluntary requirement through application dtd. 10.11.99 (annex. p/2) which was received by the respondent no. 1 on 19.11.99. (iv) further case of the petitioner is that respondent no. 1 through his letter dtd. 11/13.9.2001 (annex. p/8) informed the petitioner that by the resolution no. 42.6. dtd. 7.8.2001 managing board of the company rejected the prayer of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. hence, this writ petition. 3. reply to the writ petition was filed by the.....

Judgment:


Garg, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 1.12.2001 against the respondents with a prayer that 'by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dtd. 11/13.9.2001 (Annex.P/8) passed by Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. (respondent No. 1) by which the prayer of the petitioner for seeking voluntary retirement was rejected by quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 1 be directed to retire and relieve the petitioner under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Annex. P. 1) as per application of the petitioner dtd. 10.11.99 (Annex. P.2).

2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under :

(i) That the petitioner is the permanent employee of respondent No. 1 and working as Accounts Officer in SPINFED Spinning Unit of Gulab-pura.

(ii) That respondent. No. 1 framed a scheme (Annex. P/1) to retire its employees who seek voluntary retirement and that scheme (Annex. P/1) was circulated by respondent No. 1 through its letter dtd. 18.8.99 (Annex. P/1).

(iii) That further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Annex. P/1), the petitioner made a request for voluntary requirement through application dtd. 10.11.99 (Annex. P/2) which was received by the respondent No. 1 on 19.11.99.

(iv) Further case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 through his letter dtd. 11/13.9.2001 (Annex. P/8) informed the petitioner that by the resolution No. 42.6. dtd. 7.8.2001 Managing Board of the Company rejected the prayer of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents has not opposed the writ petition strongly.

6. It may be stated here that if Government has right to compulsorily retire an employee, similarly a Government servant has also right to seek voluntary retirement. Thus, denial to the petitioner of his right to seek voluntary retirement is violative of legal right of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner is entitled to the seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned decision dtd. 7.8.2001 and letter dtd. 11/13.9.2001 (Annex. P/8) are liable to be set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the impugned decision dtd. 7.8.2001 and letter dtd. 11/13.9.2001 (Annex. P/8) issued by the respondent No. 1 (Managing Director) Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Limited) are set aside and the respondent No. 1 is directed to retire and relieve the petitioner under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Annex. P/1) as per petitioner's application dtd. 10.11.99 (Annex. P/2).

No order as to costs.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //