CWP No. 14623 of 2005 (1) ` IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 7.7.2008 Ashwani Kumar ......Petitioner Versus The National Textile Corporation Ltd. and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the communication dated 1.4.2005 (Annexure P.6), whereby, the representation of the petitioner for adjustment in the alternative post with the respondent-Corporation was declined. The petitioner while working with the Panipat Woolen Mills, respondent No.3, was promoted as Supervisor on 11.12.1987. On 21.11.2003, a circular was issued and the employees, such as the petitioners were given option to seek voluntary retirement. The offer of the petitioner to seek voluntary retirement was received on 20.12.2003 and in pursuance of such communication, the petitioner was ordered to be retired voluntarily vide order dated 19.2.2004 (Annexure P.2) with effect from 21.2.2004 (afternoon). In the request for CWP No. 14623 of 2005 (2) voluntary retirement (Annexure P.1), the petitioner has sought voluntary retirement and also undertaken not to withdraw the resignation tendered by him. However, he also requested to adjust him in any other unit of the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner was retired in terms of his offer, but was not adjusted against the alternative post, therefore, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.1975 of 2005. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 4.2.2005, but a direction was issued to the Corporation to decide the representation of the petitioner for adjustment. In pursuance of such direction, order Annexure P.6 dated 1.4.2005, has been passed to the effect that there is no suitable vacancy in any of the units of the Corporation, against which the petitioner's request for adjustment could be considered. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation (Annexure P.7), pointing out that a number of employees have been adjusted in the other units of the Corporation. Therefore, it was alleged that the non-adjustment of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. Aggrieved against his non-adjustment against the alternative vacancies alleged to be available with the Corporation, the petitioner has now invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In reply, it has been pointed out that the petitioner retired on the basis of modified retirement scheme from the service of Panipat Woolen Mills Ltd. It is pointed out that the Panipat Woolen Mills, where the petitioner was employed, has been permanently closed as per the scheme sanctioned by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. It was pointed out that on 21.11.2003 a circular was issued to the effect that the respondent-Mills was CWP No. 14623 of 2005 (3) going to be closed and accordingly, applications were invited from the employees for seeking voluntary retirement. It is pointed out that since the petitioner sought voluntarily retirement under the modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme, therefore, the request of the petitioner for transfer to the other units is without any substance and that there is no suitable vacancy for the petitioner in any of the Units of the respondent-Corporation against which he could be adjusted. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was relieved from the respondent-Mills on 21.2.2004, but the petitioner has not come to the Mills to collect the relieving order. It was also pointed out that some persons have been adjusted against the alternative posts, but no suitable post is available for adjustment of the petitioner in any of the units of the respondent-Corporation. The challenge to the voluntary retirement of the petitioner has attained finality with the dismissal of Civil Writ Petition No. 1975 of 2005, vide order dated 4.2.2005. This Court has directed the Corporation to decide his representation for adjustment in some other unit. It is the categorical stand of the respondent-Corporation that there is no suitable vacancy against which the petitioner could be adjusted. In fact, Shri Mehtani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, during the course of arguments has stated that in Delhi, Punjab and Rajasthan Regions of National Textile Corporation Ltd. (i.e. Respondent No.1), only one unit is working and all other units have since been closed. Therefore, there is no post against which the petitioner can be adjusted. The direction to consider adjustment against the CWP No. 14623 of 2005 (4) available post is only a concession. Once, the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement has been accepted, the petitioner has no right to seek adjustment in other units of the Corporation. Merely because some other employees have been adjusted, does not confer any cause of action on the petitioner for adjustment as the adjustment has to be made keeping in view the suitability of a candidate and availability of the vacancy. There is nothing on record, wherefrom it could be inferred that the decision of the respondents that no suitable post is available, is illegal or arbitrary, which may warrant interference by this Court. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 07-07-2008 ds