@ smGL-E BENCH 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G.1 w.P’(S) No. 60$ /201 1 ww/ / PETITIONER : Bharat Aluminum Employees Union : Vice President (Regd) Through / Ramadhar Chandra S/o Shri Maya Ram CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS 1 a’ 4W“ Chandra, aged about 54 years, R/o O Gurudwara Road, Sector 6, Balco Nagar Korba (C.G.) VERSUS Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd, $ (Vedanta) Through Managing Director, Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd., Balco Nagar Korba, Tahsil 85 District Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION Ag SQ No. 605 of2011 PETI‘I‘IONER : Bharat Aluminum Employees Union VERSUS RESPONDENI‘S : Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. WRIT PE’H'HON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ’ ’ INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotli, J. Present Shri Samir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. d 5‘ o ) (Passe on 01 day f February, 2.0 l‘l 1. Challeng i ti ition s to the elity n validity of e ircuar a .0.1 n e gou ha e evi Vnt Riet hme 000 ( ht ‘h Sh ) i n uconstitutional. “ que t te oh yr/spdt to rtire e f te ploes on volry asi d th schme s e n hs pet i lga ad th cl dted 091201 o th rnd tt th Rsed A oluaiy etremn Sce, 2 for sor te ceme ’, s 2. On ry. aso how h policy fte emploereonen e som o h emye unta bs uner e e i consitl, le cunse app fr te ptionr is I untutiona arned ol earing o h etie , unae o pla xp a etai rsfs poe re ih d to eond qury at whher the tanfr hs anythig t d h h heme r is i a prt ofth shmeto the etent tat ie seme s cc poee ll rsre, matial hs ben produced or any avement has been made by the ption r. on prsal of the impugnd circlar, it appears that the \\ em s o rc as ca e bl t exin ecet tht crn taner ofthe emlyes a eing ae. sky 3. Wt regar sc e so et rse a n o o wit te sc o t a e ce x h fth ch i not aepted, the emly sha be tanferd no er a e r eti e 4. Even eu e u sche i nt foed one, as clue 2 of the cirulr stats that/ ORDER QORAL) b md 2 employees desirous of availing the Voluntaxy Retirement Scheme may submit application in the attached fonnat. Clause 3 further provides that it does not confer any right on an employee to have his/her request for Voluntary Retirement accepted by the Managemen .” This clearly indicates that the scheme does not exert any pressure or create any problem for the employee who has not made application for opting the scheme. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference of this Court with the impugned circular. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. 5 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l