* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6191/2006 QUTAB HOTEL EMPLOYEES WELFARE ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Rajni Anand, Advocate. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Alpana Poddar, Advocate for R-3. Mr. Ajay Kapoor with Mr.G. Panmei, Advocate for R- 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 23.05.2008 1. The petitioner-Association has filed the present writ petition praying for quashing of the Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2002. It is also prayed that the employees of the petitioner-Association should be provided re- employment. 2. Qutab Hotel originally belonged to and was managed by India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., a Government of India undertaking. 3. On 20.3.2002, Qutab Hotel was disinvested and the management of the said hotel was taken over by a private company named, Eden Park Hotels Pvt. Ltd., the respondent No.3 to the present writ petition. 4. M/s Eden Park Hotels Pvt. Ltd. floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 26.4. 2002. Several employees of the Hotel who had become employees of Edenpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. took benefit of the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The applications filed by the employees opting for the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme were accepted and the benefits/consideration payable under the retirement scheme were paid to the said employees in the year 2002. It is clear from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the said employees have drawn and utilized the money paid under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Principle of Estoppel therefore applies in the present case as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India vs. O.P. Swarankar reported in (2003) 2 SCC 721. 5. In these circumstances, the petitioner-Association cannot now be permitted to challenge and question the Voluntary Retirement Scheme which was floated by the respondent No.3 in April, 2002. I may note here that the present writ petition was filed on 31.2.2006, nearly three and half years after Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2002 was introduced by the respondent No.3 and applications made by the employees were accepted. The respondent No.3 is a private limited company and is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Voluntary Retirement Scheme was contractual in nature and in case the petitioner-Association feels that employees were forced to enter into agreements, they were/are at liberty to file a civil suit. A writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent No.3. 6. The question of dis-investment and rights of employees is well settled. Supreme Court in the case of Balco Employees’ Union (Regd) versus Union of India reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333 has observed that employees of a Public Sector Undertaking do not have a vested right to continue to enjoy the status as an employee of an instrumentality of the State. Decision in All India ITDC Workers’ Union and others versus ITDC and others reported in (2006) 10 SCC 66 is directly applicable. 7. Another prayer made in the present Writ Petition is in respect of the medical benefits as per the Memorandum of Settlement dated 15th June, 2002 and Office Order dated 24th July, 2000. Memorandum of Settlement dated 15th June, 2002 has not been filed by the petitioner. Office Order dated 24th July, 2000 relates to ITDC (Retired Employees) Medical Benefit Scheme. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Eden Park Hotels Pvt. Ltd. that medical expenses as per actuals is being reimbursed to the retired employees. In the Writ Petition the petitioner-Association has not pointed out any specific instance where an ex-employee has been denied reimbursement. I am not inclined to go into the hypothetical situations without any specific evidence and allegations. However, it is clarified that in case the respondent no.3 fails to make payment and reimburse the medical expenditure, the ex- employee will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Respondent no.3 will be equally entitled to take all objections. With the aforesaid observations and findings, the Writ Petition is disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 23, 2008. Nk/P