IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11912 of 2009 1. Shayam Nandan Roy, son of Late Harilal Rai, resident of village Simaria, Police Station Barauni, District Begusarai 2. Ashok Kumar Singh, Son of Siyaram Singh, resident of village Bihat, Police Station Barauni, District Begusarai 3. Hareram Pandit, son of Sitaram Pandit, resident of village Hawaspur, Police Station Barauni, District Begusarai 4. Jagdish Bhagat, sons of Late Snehi Bhagat, resident of village Hawaspur, Police Station Barauni, District Begusarai 5. Rajendra Paswan, son of Late Nathuni Paswan, resident of Ulao, Police station Mufassil, District Begusarai 6. Ram Naresh Rai, son of Late Ram Jatan Rai, rresident of village Rachiahi Nayatola, Police Station Matihani, District Begusarai 7. Bhuttu Rai, son of Ram Bahadur Rai, resident of village Rachiahi Nayatola, Police Station Matihani, District Begusarai 8. Deonandan Paswan, son of Rameshwar Paswan, resident of village Bihat, Police Station Barauni, District Begusarai 9. Yugal Kishore Singh @ Yugal Singh son of Late Ram Chandra Singh, resident of village Bihat, Police Station Barauni, District Begusarai 10. Gopal Raman Paswan son of Late Chhattu Paswan resident of village Pokharia, Ward no. 28, Police Station Begusarai 11. Ramji Razak, son of late Bihari Razak, resident of village Ulao, Police Station Mufassil, District Begusarai. 12. Arvind Prasad Singh, son of Late Dip Narayan Singh, resident of village Hular, Police Station Mansoorpur, District Vaishali. 13. Deo Narayan Thakur, son of Ram Swarath Thakur, resident of village Kushiya, Police Station Warisnagar, District Samastipur. 14. Sone Lal Paswan, son of Ram Jatan Paswan, resident of village Dariapur, Murarpur, Police Station Hathidah, District Patna. 15. Nawal Kishore Singh, son of Late Jagdev Singh, resident of village Bihat, Police Station Barauni, District Begusarai. Versus 1. The Union Of India , through the Secretary, Department of Chemical and Fertilizer, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. Secretary, Department of Chemical and Fertilizer, Government of India, New Delhi. 3. Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., Noida through its Chief Personnel Officer. 4. Incharge General Manager, Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., Barauni Unit, Barauni. For the Petitioners :M/s P.N. Shahi & Partha Sarthy, Advocates For the Union of India :Mr. Sarvdeo Singh, Advocate For the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. :M/s K.N. Gupta & Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate 05/ 28.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Union of India - 2 - and the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the HFC Ltd.). 2. Petitioners are the erstwhile employees of the HFC Ltd., who were released under Voluntary Separation Scheme. They have filed the writ application praying, inter alia, to direct the HFC Ltd. to again consider their re-engagement in the light of the instructions of the Department of Fertilizer, Government of India as the said Department is exploring the possibility of suitable placement of the employees of the HFC Ltd., who have been released under Voluntary Separation Scheme. Such fact is evident from the fax message dated 13.8.2004 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, HFC Ltd., Noida and in terms of the said fax message, petitioners submitted their willingness as per the form appended with the fax message, which is contained in Annexure-18 to this application. Perusal of the consent form indicates that the same has been issued in the light of the letter/circular no. 2004 dated 16.8.2004. Having noticed the aforesaid fax message as also the resolve of the Department of Fertilizer to explore possibility of suitable placement of the Ex-employees of the HFC Ltd., this Court under orders dated 15.9.2009 issued notice to Respondent nos. 3 and 4 as also directed the counsel for the Union of India to seek instruction from the Department of Fertilizer and to file counter affidavit, but the counter affidavit was not filed and the matter was taken up on 13.7.2010 this Court again directed the counsel for the Union of India to seek instruction in the light of the earlier order dated 15.9.2009. Counsel for the Union of India, however, states that - 3 - in spite of all efforts made by him to contact the authorities in the Department of Fertilizer, Government of India, none has responded and he is not in a position to file counter affidavit. 3. Counsel for the HFC Ltd. i.e. Respondent nos. 3 and 4, however, states that the proposal of the Department of Fertilizer to explore the possibility of suitable placement of the employees of the HFC Ltd., who have been released under Voluntary Separation Scheme, was never taken seriously by the Department of Fertilizer itself, as no steps for engagement of the Ex-employees was ever taken after expressing the desire to explore the possibility of their suitable placement the HFC Ltd. is not in a position to grant suitable placement to the ex-employees as there is no chance of revival of the unit at Barauni. 4. Petitioners having raised their claim on the basis of the fax message dated 13.8.2004, Annexure-17 and this Court having taken notice of the fax message under order dated 15.9.2009, directed the counsel for the Union of India to seek instruction and file counter affidavit it was expected of the authorities of the Department of Fertilizer to have responded and clarified the position, but in spite of two indulgence granted in the matter, no counter affidavit has been filed. 5. In the circumstances, this Court has no option, but to direct the petitioners to represent before the Secretary, Department of Fertilizer, Government of India to consider their fresh engagement in the light of the proposal of the Department of Fertilizer for suitable - 4 - placement of the employees of the HFC Ltd. reflected in the fax message dated 13.8.2004, Annexure-17. Petitioners should file their representation along with a copy of this order before the Secretary, Department of Fertilizer, Government of India, who shall be obliged to consider the same and pass a reasoned order, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)