IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) No.12330 of 2008 Decided on: June 3, 2011 Asif Khan ..Petitioner Versus H.P. Tourism Development Corporation .. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner was working as Maitri-De-Hotel with the respondent-Corporation, in the year 2003, when a scheme for voluntary retirement of its employees, was introduced by the respondent, vide Annexure A-1. Petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 28.1.2004, vide request, copy annexure A-2. As per this request, he opted for voluntary retirement from 30th September, 2007. Managing Director of respondent-Corporation, however, vide order dated 24.12.2004, copy Annexure A-3, ordered his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2004. Petitioner sent a FAX letter on 27.12.2004, copy Annexure A-4, to the Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation, informing him that he could not have been retired w.e.f. 31.12.2004, as his option for voluntary retirement was from 30th September, 2007. 2. In the meanwhile, petitioner was relieved on 31.12.2004, pursuant to the order dated 24.12.2004, copy Annexure A-3. Petitioner then wrote a letter dated 5.1.2005, copy annexure R-2, withdrawing the FAX letter dated 27.12.2004, and requesting for release of his dues, on account of retirement under VRS. Order, for release of his dues, was passed on 11.1.2005, copy Annexure R-3. 3. Petitioner thereafter filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, seeking quashing of order of his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.12.2004. He also sought compensation amounting to ` 1 lac for harassment and mental agony. 4. Respondent, in its reply, without explaining as to what prompted it to voluntarily retire the petitioner from 31.12.204, when he had requested for being retired from 30.9.2007, has taken the plea that after the order of retirement, copy Annexure A-3, was issued, petitioner vide letter dated 5.1.2005, copy Annexure R-2, asked for release of VRS dues and withdrew an earlier letter dated 27.12.2004, intimating the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation that when he had opted for É3É retirement from 30.9.2007, the order retiring him from 31.12.2004, was bad. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Undoubtedly, petitioner, vide application copy Annexure A-2, and the statement of information submitted with Annexure A-2, sought retirement from 30.9.2007. Respondent has not explained why the petitioner was retired w.e.f. 31.12.2004, when his request was for retiring him w.e.f. 30.9.2007. Action of the respondent, in retiring the petitioner from a date earlier than the one, mentioned in Annexure A-2, was, therefore, arbitrary and illegal. 7. Petitioner wrote to the respondent that the order retiring him on 31.12.2004, was not in consonance with his request, by faxing a letter dated 27.12.2004, copy Annexure A-4, but he was relieved on 31.12.2004. So, he felt compelled to request the Managing Director of respondent- Corporation to release his VRS dues and this he could have done only if he withdrew letter dated 27.12.2004, copy Annexure A-4. 8. Petitioner had sought retirement from 30.9.2007. Now, we are in 2011. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to quash the order of voluntary retirement of the petitioner and to direct his re-employment. However, the order of his retirement being bad, as aforesaid, respondent-Corporation is directed to compensate the petitioner, by paying him a É4É sum of rupees one lac, as demanded by him in the present petition. Order be complied with by 31st August, 2011. Petition stands disposed of. June 3, 2011(ss) (Surjit Singh), J.