|V-\^\^ .-••" A-'/A^- ^^^ ^v;^^0--^ 8 ..-•Ai'.'y-" -... .-••'n''\'?-^ ..••'' ^..•••Yn..-tV"Je/^-'''" ^"'c»(A-V"C,1?-"7 ^^s1^' ^f' : ?<^....•-•" C^)- ) o<7 ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.'S?.^:..../ 2009 WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 fll OF CHHATHSGARH MGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006. APPEUANT: (Petitioner in W.P.(S) ^ Ravindra Kumar Sisodia S/o Late Kunvar Bhuvan Bhushan Singh, aged about 58 years R/o: House No. A-l, MPSRTC (Rajya Parivahan Nigam) Colony, Rampur ITI, TahsU 85 District: Korba, Chhattfsgarh. No.427 of 2009). Versus c/ RESPONDENTS: (Resoondent No. 1 in 01. ,02. 03 State of Chhattisgarh, through Principle Secretaiy, Department of Home (Transport), Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Develop- ment Cdrporation Limited through its Managing Director, Raipur, Chhatdsgarh. Divisional Manager, Chhattfsgarh Infra- structure Development Corporation Limited [Transport Division], Bus Stand, BUaspur, Chhatdsgarh. WPNo.427of2009). (Resoondeat No.2 in WPNo.427of 20091. {Resoondent No.3 in WPNo.427of2009).' •4;£."' *~"^... ^•'^. i>*:e^ .^', ^'~ '' ^'^ k. k 1s J "^•.••-'^ KiNAs-5';? 'M;^-7 v'i^ g':/ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR bIVISION BENCH: HON. MR. bHIRENbRA MISHRA <& HON. MR. R.N. CHAN&RAKAR. JJ Writ Appeal No.207/2009 APPELLANT Ravindra Kumar Sisodia Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh <& others JUDGMENT FOR CONSI&ERATFON Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.N. CHANDRAKAR ^ CLe^>t-&e-. POST FOR JUD6MENT ONor?-08-2009 Sd'- R.N. Chandra Judge sai- 06 .08.2009 fc^ MIGH COURT OF CHHATn:S6ARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 207/2009 (Writ Appeal u/s 2 (1) of C.&. High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 APPELLANT Petitioner in W.P. (s) No.427 of 2009) Vs RESPONDENTS: (Respondent No.l in W.P. No.427 of 2009) (Respondent No.2 in W.P. No.427 of 2009) (Respondent No.3 in W.P. No.427 of 2009) Ravindra Kumar Sisodia, S/o Late Kunvar Bhuvan Bhushan Singh, aged about 58 years, R/o House No.A-1, MPSRTC (Rajya Parivahan Nigam) Colony, Rampur ITI, Tahsil <& District; Korba, ChhatTisgarh. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Principle Secretary, Department of Home (Transport), Mantralaya, bau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited through its Managing Director, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. bivisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (Transport Division), Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Present: Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Prashant Mishra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent No.2 <& 3. JUbGMENT (Passed on 02.8.2009) bhirendra Mishra. J; 1. By this writ appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 15.6.2009 passed in W.P. (s) No.427/2009 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. Facts emerging from the writ petition are that the appellant was posted as Depot Manager in the erstwhile M.P. State Road Transport CoRporation Ltd. (for short 'MPSRTC') at Korba. After formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, MPSRTC was dissolved on 13.12.2002 and Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (for short 'CIbC') was authorized to takeover the assets, liabilities, rights and employees of the MPSRTC with a condition that "the management of assets & liobilities and rehabilitation of the employees shall be done 3 according to the policies and directions of the State Sovernment issued from time to time." Rehabilitation scheme for ex-MPSRTC employees was prepared and notified, as per recommendations of the Cotnmittee constituted by the State, in the name of Voluntory Retirement Scheme, 2003 (for shor-t 'Scheme, 2003'). As per Scheme, 2003 the employees, who are willing to avail voluntary retirement scheme benefit, were also permitted to purchase those MPSRTC accommodations in which they are residing. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement and accordingly, he retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2005 vide order dated 2Z.12.2005. At that point of time he was residing in MPSRTC accommodation located at Rampur, Korba. On 23.12.2005 the appellant also applied for purchasing the departmental accommodation in his possession as per scheme floated by the CIDC. Srievance of the appellantin the writ petition was that he was entitled for benefit of purchase under the circular dated 9.4.2007 issued by the Manoging birector, however, the respondents did not take any action for transferring the departmental accommodation in his favour and even the retiral dues have not been released, on the contrary, the appellant was served with the order by the respondents to vacate the departmental accommodation in his possession. The order of the respondents calling upon him to vacate the departmental accommodation is without any authority as offer for purchasing the departmental accommodation has already been accepted by The appellant. It was further case of the appellant that Scheme, 2003 was framed as per rehabilitation policy of the State (Sovernment and the CIDC had no right to take any policy decision in respect of rehabilitation of MPSRTC employees. Circular dated 9.4.2007 issued by the Managing Director was in accordance with the rehabilitation package/policy. 3. Mr. Rajkamal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that finding of the learned Single Judge that the recommendation of the Committee cannot be held as part of the rehabilitation package without their being any acceptance by the ,^eam ..S S^, "9!s "i. 11 <<y b^i competent authority i.e. the Board of Directors in case of CIDC,as the same was registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is contrary to the stand of CIDC, as CIDC has not disputed the Scheme, 2003 which provided for transfer of departmental accommodation to such employees who opted for voluntary retirement and expressed their willingness to purchase departmental accommodation in their possession at the market price. The CIDC was not competent to modify/ amend the Scheme, 2003 and substitute Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2005 (for short 'Scheme, 2005') uvithout concurrence of the State Government, as CIDC is merely a nodal agency of the State Sovernment in respect of rehabilitation of the employees and management of assets/ liabilities pertaining to the MPSRTC. Circular dated 9.4.2007 issued by the Managing birector, CIDC, whereby it was directed that benefit of Scheme, 2003 be also extended to the employees opting for voluntary retirement under Scheme, 2005 in the matters of purchase of departmental accommodation in their possession, is in accordance with the rehabilitation package approved by the Chhattisgarh Sovernment for ex-MPSRTC emptoyees. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent CIDC submitted that circular of the Managing Director dated 9.4.2007 was issued without approval of the Board of Directors of CIDC and the same was contrary to the Scheme, 2005 wherein there was no provision of benefit of purchase of departmental accommodation to the employees opting voluntary retirement. The Board of Directors in its meeting dated 20.1.2009 resolved to annul the above circular of the Managing Director with immediate effect. Referring to the application of the appellant for voluntary retirement dated 21.11.2005 it was submitted that the appellant had himself applied for voluntary retirement under the Scheme, 2005 and deliberately did not opt for the purchase of departmental accommodation in his possession as conditional offer for voluntary retirement contrary to Scheme, 2005 was not acceptable. His offer was accepted by the CIDC vide order dated 22.12.2005 and he was directed to be relieved on 31.12.2005 and l!3~"w-n''"?~s; ^ ^ Tis»> only after the above order was passed, the appellant applied for purchase of departmental accommodation in his possession on 23.12.2005. Since the appellant himself applied for voluntary retirement under the Scheme, 2005 and there is no provision under the Scheme, 2005 of benefit of purchase of departmental accommodation, the appellant cannot claim benefit which is otherwise available under the Scheme, 2003. Cfr 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the order of learned Single Judge as also documents filed by the respective parties and referred to by them during the course of arguments. 6. Indisputably, Scheme, 2003 provided for benefit of purchase of departmental accommodation to such employees who are in possession of the departmental accommodation and who exercise their option for the purchase of same at the time of opting for voluntary retirement under the Scheme,2003. It is also not in dispute that the appellant applied for voluntary retirement on 21.11.2005 by specifically mentioning that he is applying under the Scheme, 2005 after studying it and at the time of filing application he did not mention that he is also prepared to purchase departmental accommodation in his possession. His offer for voluntary retirement was accepted on 22.12.2005 and it was decided to retire him w.e.f. 31.12.2005. He applied for the purchase of departmental accommodation only on 23.12.2005. It is also not in dispute that the Scheme, 2005 under which the appellant applied for purchase of departmental accommodation does not contain provision of purchase of departmental accommodation by the retiring employees. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the finding of the iearned Single Judge that there was no provision of purchase of allotted accommodation under the Scheme, 2005 and as such, no direction can be issued against the respondents to transfer the departmental accommodation in possession of the petitioner, is strictly inaccordance withlaw. ^SfSaiS ^ 'o b 7. However, taking into consideration that the appellant was voluntarily retired on 31.12.2005 and he applied for the purchase of departmental accommodation in his possession in the year 2005 itself and in the meanwhile, the Managing Director of CIDC issued general circular dated 9.4.2007 and notified that benefit of purchase of allotted departmental accommodation available under the Scheme, 2003 shall also be provided to the employees who are retiring under the Scheme, 2005, the possession of the appellant in departmental accommodation after retirement is bonafide. Grievance of the appellant that he was not paid his retiral dues within two months of his retirement has not been disputed by the respondents in their return, therefore, the respondents are directed to pay the retiral dues of the appellant within a period of two months from today and the appellant shall also be entitled for simple interest © 9% per annum on the unpaid retiral dues from the date of his retirement. Roshan/- 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd.'- R.N. Chandrakar Judge