q^ L^ A^^ HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ! Writ Petition (S) No.427 of 2009 Ravindra Kumar Sisodia Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others Post for pronouncement of the judgment and order on /$"06-2009 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge PETITIONER HIGH^OURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 427 of 2009 Ravindra Kumar Sisodia, S/o Late Kunvar Bhuvan Bhushan Singh, aged about 58years, R/o House No. A-1, MPSRTC (Rajya Parivahan Nigam) Colony, Rampur ITI, Tahsil & District Kora (Chhattisgarh). 2^ Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Transport), Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (Transport Division), Bus Stand, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). (Writ petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Raj Kamal Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Prashant Mishra, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents No.2 & 3. JUDGMENT&ORDER (Passed on this l^ayofJune, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly issue the writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondents to transfer the departmental housein possession ofthe petitioner. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents to pay the remaining money of petitioner's retirement benefits after deducting the value ofthe house. 10.3 The Hon'ble High Court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents to reimburse all the medical expenses being incurred on his cardiactreatment. ^ 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit be granted and cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded because of the harassment to the petitioner." The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was an employee of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for sho/t "the MPSRTC") and posted at Korba as Depot Manager. After formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the MPSRTC was dissolved. Vide notification dated 13-12-2002 (Annexure - P/2), the State of Chhattisgarh authorized the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short "the CIDC") to take over all the assets, liabilities, rights and employees of the MPSRTC with a condition that "the management of assets & liabilities and the rehabilitation of the employees shatl be done according to the policies and directions of the State Government issued from time to time." Thereafter, a notification dated 27-12-2002 (Annexure - P/1) was published by the Central Government in the Gazette of India. On the basis of the report submitted by the committee in respect of alternate transport management, rehabilitation scheme for ex-MPSRTC employees and resolutions with regard to management of assets and liabilities received from the MPSRTC, the rehabilitation policy approved by the State of Chhattisgarh provided that employees those are residing in the MPSRTC houses were permitted to purchase the said houses. In pursuance of the said decision of the State of Chhattisgarh, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2003 (for short "VRS") was also introduced and the employees who are willing to avail the VRS benefit were also permitted to purchase those MPSRTC houses in which they are residing. According to the petitioner, the petitioner applied forVRS and retired from service w.e.f. 31-12-2005, which is evident from the order dated •l^ 22-12-2005 (Annexure - P/3). At that time, the petitioner was residing' in the MPSRTC house, i.e. "A-1 Rajya Parivahan Nigam Colony, Rampur, Korba" and, as such, applied for purchasing the said house as per the scheme floated by the State of Chhattisgarh, vide application dated 23-12-2005 (Annexure - P/4). 4. Shri Raj Kamal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the benefit of purchase of the house of the MPSRTC was granted to the petitioner under the circular dated 9-4-2007 (Annexure - P/5). After availing the house of the MPSRTC, the petitioner renovated the same incurring huge expenses. The respondent authorities have not initiated any steps for registration of the said house in favour of the petitioner and even the retiral dues of the petitioner have also not been released. However, all of a sudden vide letters dated 25-11-2008 (Annexure - P/6) and 31-12-2008 (Annexure - P/7) the respondent authorities asked the petitioner to vacate the house in question. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid letters. Without appreciating the response submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities forced the petitioner to vacate the house in question. Thus, this petition. 5. It is next contended that the act of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner applied for VRS and also applied for purchasing the MPSRTC house as per the decision of the State of Chhattisgarh. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondents have no right to ask the petitioner to vacate the house because the offer of purchasing the house has already been accepted by the petitioner. Even the respondents assured the petitioner that the house in question is likely to be transferred in favour of the petitioner and ^g33 w'5;:?CT~ay release the retiral dues. On the basis of the said assurance, the petitioner fixed the marriage of his daughter in the month of February, 2009. The petitioner also suffered cardiac problems, admitted in hospital and incurred huge expenses of Rs.3,50,000/-. Shri Singh would next urge that the respondents have no authority to change the provisions of the VRS. The CIDC has no right to take any policy decision in respect of the rehabilitation of the MPSRTC employees. The respondents had no right to withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner, but they are illegally and unlawfully withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner, which is against the provisions of the VR Scheme 2005. Shri Singh would again submit that as per the notification, the CIDC is merely an authorized agent of the State of Chhattisgarh and it has no right to sit upon and dilute effect of the rehabilitation package formulated by the State of Chhattisgarh for ex-MPSRTC employees. Shri Singh would further submit that the rehabilitation package (Annexure - P/8 and Annexure - P/9) was approvedby the State of Chhattisgarh wherein there was a specific provision that the ex- employees of the MPSRTC residing in the MPSRTC houses should be given option to purchase the departmentat houses in their possession after deducting the existing value of the house. The rehabilitation packages/policy as approved by the State of Chhattisgarh cannot be diluted by a subsequent VR Scheme 2005 framed by the CIDC. The CIDC has no right to withdraw the said facility to the ex-employees of the MPSRTC. Thus, the circular dated 9-4-2007 passed bythe Managing Directorwas in accordance with the rehabilitation package/policy. The petitioner has not been paid the retiral dues; therefore, he is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% perannum. '^.^ Ms Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/ respondent No.1, would submit that the notices dated 25-11-2008 and 31-12-2008 were issued by the Managing Director, CIDC. Even the circular dated 9-4-2007 (Annexure - P/5), on which the petitioner placed his reliance, was also issued by the Managing Director, CIDC. Learned counsel would furi:her submit that no relief has been claimed by the petitioner against the State of Chhattisgarh. Per contra, Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Sr. Advocate and Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned Advocate for the respondents No.2 & 3, would submit that the relief prayed by the petitioner is not sustainable. The contention of the petitioner with regard to purchase of the departmental house in his possession at the strength of the circular dated 9-4-2007 issued by the Managing Director, CIDC is illegal because the circular dated 9-4-2007 issued by the Managing Director was itself without the approval of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors of CIDC in its 25th meeting held on 20-1-2009 decided to cancel the circular dated 9-4-2007. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is not entitled with regard to his claim for purchase of departmental house, as the petitioner has opted for VRSas per VR Scheme, 2005. In VR Scheme 2005, there is no provision for purchase of departmental house. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned senior counsel, would next submit that the CIDC has received request letters from the other employees who opted for the VRS under the VR Scheme 2005 for purchase of departmental house, but the same have not been entertained on the ground that under the VR Scheme 2005 there was no provision for purchase of the departmental house by the voluntarily retired employees. It was next submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the letters dated 25-11-2008 (Annexure - P/6) and 31-12-2008 q^- & (Annexure - P/7) whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the house in question, which was allotted to the petitioner when he was working as an employee of the MPSRTC. Thus, no relief as sought for can be granted to the petitioner. 10, I have heard learned counsel appearing forthe parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner in his rejoinder dated 19-4-2009 has made an additional submission to quash the order dated 25-11-2008. 11. On the request of learned counsel appearing for the parties, by order dated 8-5-2009 three days time was granted to file written submissions, the respondent No-1/State and the respondents No.2 & 3/CIDC have chosen not to file written submissions within the prescribed time and thereafter. 12. The MPSRTC was divided pursuant to the notifications dated 13-12-2002 (Annexure - P/2) and 27-12-2002 (Annexure - P/1) in the following terms : "3T?T: STsT ^-^UT ^NC^R, TT£ZfT,T^T ^^[d-1 srf^rf^m, 2000 ^t ETRT 58 ^t ^^TNT (3) ^KT H^^T ^rf^PTT ^T W^ ^^ ~^, TTST ^?T ^F^ 3fl~? y^Tl^^ci ^pjqT c^ ^ ^ezf H^T ^T^T ^gc^ qRc|^^ f^pp^ ^ ^iR-d^', sitoKT sf^ ^TtefT ^ ^TFJH ^" f^TT PlM[^lRcld ^raT sRKft t, STstfcT - (1) ^S3T ff^T ^T^T ~^^p tfc^-T f-TTm ^T ^^ ^W, iT^ Sft^ <>T^R 1 ''T^F^R, 2000 ^t " ^RT t, ^f t " ^ 3TTSTN ^T? f^-Trf^T f^TT ^TT^TT ^^^lld^l cf'4'qiR^ ^ yc^l'<^lco sf^ ^'q H^?T ^ ^ 18 : 82 ^ 3T3ITRT ^ iTTCT vll^^ll | SP^-SHT^ ^T^I to^T ^?t HT^ ^ ch4^1]R<l^ ^ 3n^ 3T?T ^ f^F? v3^l^c;l41 ?TTt' l (2) ^TTo^ 3TTf^PTT (sRTf sfl^ ^TgRT ^t y|^ch\i ) 3^? ^iRi^' 1^r^r ^&TK, srto sTrf^ ^F^^id t, 'cm' sRcTNT ^ET H^T 7?N^N sf^ yoJTl^-IJIci ^Rc^K ^KT ^IT^ ^T In^ srstf^ y^i1^Ji^ £[NT ^TT^ 7T^ ^ 18 : 82 3fr? l^T ^T ^KT ^TP? 7TI? 26.49 : 73.51 ^ ^ ^T T^pjcTT plcbld ^? 1^TT ^TP?TH | (3) y^Tl^-i^i^ w^\^ ^T T^ y^lPl^T, f^TT^H ^T ^t ^TT^ ^T^, ^cb^ui ^T^T ^ f^ ^TS^ ^?T ^T^T ^Rc|^-l f^TR ^ ij^ ^r f^TT ^TPTHT | (4) cn^-cllR^ ~^\ ^?FT f^T^FT •<<i[^y>c^ ^T ^N ^\ ^f^fd^ t, Rye-i ^t ^11^^ ^T^ Rl^^i-i ^^||[^1d '^FTT ^RT ^f^T 1^TT ^TT^TTT |" The services of the petitioner was accordingly allocated to the State ofChhattisgarh. 13. A committee was constituted to rehabilitate the ex-employees of the State Road TransportCorporation under the chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance). The committee submitted its report (Annexure - P/8) wherein it was provided that for the rehabilitation package of the erstwhile employees ofthe MPSRTC, a separate Corporation/company be constituted. In the subsequent report (Annexure - P/9) with regard to rehabilitation and VR Scheme it was recommended as under : "(ii) VRS ^FTT :- ^Pl'^llf^l^ ^R^TT^T ^RT f^TW ^ ^T^ 'tN ^^FT T^T Uf^T cRT ^4^lR^1' ^t W^TT ^ ^fft ^^ ^ vjc^^^ ^" i^R-ych ^TT p|^fa1 'q^FTT (VRS) ^TP^ ^t 7T^ ^ft i y<^Tl'<-iji<A ^ ci^i4'<^ 946 ch4-c|lR^1' ^KT ^T ^HT ^ ?T^T dd^-l^^l ^^f^T ^t 7T^ sft,, "^ ^^^ f^FFT ^NT ^T ch4^lR^1' ^t ^H ^FTT ^T ^TPT ^ff f^TT TPTT 1 ^^ ^I^T ?TRFT s^NT 4Rc|^^ f^TW TTc^T ^T ^f^ ^T f^N f^fzn- Tp^- i- ^f^ W-T^T-TT t f^ ^T ch4^lR^1' ^Tf^T ^> 3ft^ ch4-^l^ •^t ^H ^JFTT ^T ^TPT -^n- ^cntr}- | ^NT sTT^t ^TtTT ^ ^FTT ^F? ch^lR^' ^ ^ch^d ymr'T f^rr TTOT t, 1T^ y<xTl'<HJi<A ?TR:R' z^\ .•<' ^NT ch4-c|lR<4l" ^t ^ch^d yRTR ~Sp^\ ^m^ ^ ^PTT | f^Pm ^ 946 ch^^ll^ 1^R^ ^KT ^ ^ f^ZTT TTZTT ^TT, ^- rqTTcTPT ^d; 52.8 ^t^ ^t ^T 3TN?r TT^ sft 1 f^TT ^r 'c^f ^r ^T ^ft ^T ^Tn^ iT^rT ^r^ff ^ ^ ^ ^T ^t'sr eo ^^ w^ ^r ^TR ch4^ii^ ^ ^t ^i-TI^TT t 1 ^TT ^T ^T STFF^FT ^TT^ ^ to^ m^ ch4-^iR^' ^?r wcqr ^TTcr ^ ^ fr ^r ^7n i SRT: ympT ^T ^ci ^r ^rr ^fe^id ^i^ ^ ^rf^r ^t ^ VRS ^ 3T^Rn?r ^ 'R^ra^r ^r ^TT^ ^vi-ii ^ ST^TN ^TT ^TT^r TT?^ VRS ^ '?T^T ^T 'yHTM Pl^liy-ll^ 'f^TT '^^f •'.— S\. VRS ^ ?T??T ^T ^T ^rf^T ^T 50 yf^l^ld d^hld '4,JI^IT1, ^T ^ ^r ^T ^ldl-l STT^ 3 (^TT'T) ^f ^ sTfe ^ 7?^T ^r, f^RT TN ^ ^TT^T ^r ^ ^r7n i sT. VRS ^ ^H ^T ^T ^rf^T 'cCT 20 y[?l^ld drtild yiPrFT, ^ ^ 80 y^l^ld ^1 ^T r4,^ldl^ SPT^ 4 (^TR) 'cT^f "^, yRlc)b[ 20 yRl^id ^t ^? ^ srfe ^ ^17 ^f, 10 yf^i^id yp|c|fc[ e^TM -^? TT? | ^RT^T srf^ ?TR:FT ^T 7TN€t ^ ^to ^tTt i?c[ ^^id^u] ^T ^TTi' i ^r "CR PI^^I^I^; srpra^ ^r ^PTT I ^S ^N^t ^FR ^ STT^KT T[^t ^ P|c||^^d t 1 ST^T: ^ ^ ^T ^chl^' ^- ^z[ ZT^TT ^T^ f ^T TWFT ^t ^hn ^Nn ^ ^T ^rf^T ^ ^lrilch^ ^ldl^ tefT ^jTT^ |" 14. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the committee, the Board of Directors in its 15th meeting held on 29-8-2003 (Annexure - CL\^ ^ 15. 16. R-2/2) with regard to sale of houses to employees of Transport Section opting forVRS obsen/ed as under: "After discussions, the following resolution was passed :- The Board of Directors was appraised regarding provision of sale of houses to employees of Transport Section under VRS this being a clause of the VRS and resolved that necessary action be taken at the earliest for determination of cost of these houses and release of VRS benefits to the employees after completion of requisite formalities and authorized the Managing Director to take appropriate action in this matter." In pursuance thereof, the resolution passed by the Board of Directors, Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2003 (Annexure - R-2/1) was framed wherein the provision for purchase of allotted MPSRTC houses was made, as under : "(viii) ^ cb^-^l^ ^ft ^t. 3TN. i^T., 2003 ^T ^cTT t ^ f^FPT ^ srTcffecT 3TT^RT ^T Plcll^^d t ^Tf^ ^ ^T ^ch>|^' ^f ^?T ^^TT ^n^- t 'cft ^fTR ^t cjJ^H c^l^ld ^t ^T ^rf^T ^ yeich'< ?^T ^ldH 'cf^? f^ZTT ^TT^TT |" Subsequently, VR Scheme 2005 (Annexure - R-2/3) was framed wherein there was no provision for purchase of allotted MPSRTC houses, by the voluntarily retired employees. The circular dated 9-4-2007 (Annexure - P/5), after having stated that there was no provision in the VR Scheme 2005 for purchase of the MPSRTC houses, granted permission to the employees, who opted for VRS pursuant to the VR Scheme 2005, to purchase the MPSRTC houses allotted to them. Subsequently, by letters dated 25-11-2008 (Annexure - P/6) and 31-12-2008 (Annexure - P/7), the petitioner was directed to vacate the house in question on the ground that there was no provision for purchase the departmental house allotted to him in the VR Scheme 2005. 10 17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has made an application for VRS pursuant to VR Scheme 2005. In the 25th meeting of Board of Directors held on 20-1-2009 (Annexure - R-2/4) chaired by Hon'ble the Chief Minister quashed the circular dated 9-4-2007 in agenda No.24, as the same was dehors the VR Scheme, 2005. 18. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the resolution of Board of Directors dated 20-1-2009 was not signed by all the Directors present in the meeting; therefore, the resolution canceling the circular dated 9-4-2007 was bad, deserves to be dismissed on a simple ground that the Memorandum of Articles of Association (Annexure - D/1) of CIDC, as approved by the Registrar of Companies, Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh, under the Companies Act, 1956, clearly provides that the minutes of all such meetings of the Board of Directors shall be signed by the Chairman of the respective meetings orby the Chairman of the next succeeding meeting. Article 156 ofthe Memorandum ofArticles of Association reads as under: "156. The Company shall keep detailed minutes and other appropriate records of its meetings in English and in accordance with the Act. The minutes ofall such meetings shall be signed by the Chairman of the respective meetings or by the Chairman of the next succeedingmeeting and all minutes purported to be so signed shall for all purposes whatsoever be prima facie evidence of the actual passing of the resolutions recorded and the actual and regular transactions or occurrences of the proceedings so recorded and of the regularity of the meeting at which the same shall appear to have taken place." The minutes of 25 meeting of Board of Directors held on 20-1-2009 is signed by the Chairman of the Board of Directors i.e. Hon'ble the Chief Minister and the Managing Director, CIDC. Thus, the meeting cannot be held as illegal. 11 ^ ^... ^te^ '•v^^73fs0'"'! 19. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rehabilitation packageoffered by the State of Chhattisgarh is in accordance with Annexure - P/8 & P/9 and the same is governed by principle of promissory estoppel. 20. The aforesaid submission of the petitioner is without any basis, as there is no offer to the employees. The above stated recommendation made by the High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of the Additionat Chief Secretary (Finance) was the mere recommendation and that was not an offer to the erstwhile employees of the MPSRTC, who were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. 21. Reliance of the petitioner on a decision of the h4on'ble Supreme Court rendered in Bank of India and Others vs. O.P. Swarnakar and Others is not applicable to the facts of present case, as it was observed therein that asto whether the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is an offer/proposal or merely an invitation to offer is a pure question of facts. In the present case the petitioner made an application pursuant to the VR Scheme, 2005 wherein there was no provision for purchase of allotted MPSRTC houses to the employees. There is no question of any compensation particularly in a case where the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the departmental house for a long period on the basis of alleged oral assurances. For the first time the circular was issued on 9-4-2007 without sanction of the competent authority and the same was quashed subsequently in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 20-1-2009. 22. It is well settled principle of law that the recommendations of the Committee cannot be held as a part of rehabilitation package without there being any acceptance by the competent authority i.e. the Board 1 (2003) 2 SCC 721 12 ^^ of Directors in case of the CIDC, as the same was registered under the Companies Act, 1956. 23. The next contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with regard to affording opportunity of hearing before directing the petitioner to vacate the MPSRTC house allotted to him is concemed, the law in this regard is well settled. Since the petitioner has no right to stay in the house after opting VRS, as the same was allotted to him when he was in service. The petitioner ought to have vacated the house in question immediately after opting for VRS specifically in the facts of the present case when there was no provision for purchase of allotted house under the provisions of VR Scheme 2005. Thus, this contention of the petitioner is also rejected. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the resolution passed by the Board of Directors in its 25th meeting held on 20-1-2009 whereby it was decided that the circular dated 9-4-2007 passed by the Managing Director was contrary to the provisionsof VR Scheme 2005. (See KCC Software Limited and Others vs. Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others2). 24. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove the petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (2008) 5 SCC 201