SBCWP No.1299/01. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1299/2001. Smt.Rani Mathur Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Date of order : November 20, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri M.C. Jain for the petitioner. Shri Virendra Lodha for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 23/1/2001 (Ann.8) by which request of the petitioner along with several other employees of the respondents working in their Watch Assembly Unit Ajmer seeking voluntary retirement has been accepted and subsequent order dated 23/1/2001 (Ann.9) whereby petitioner was relieved along with others. Prayer has been made to direct the respondents to make payment of revised pay scale from 1/9/1996, payment of Selection Grade on completion of SBCWP No.1299/01. 2 9 & 18 years of service, ex-gratia monetary incentive benefits for the years 1998-99 and 1999-200, gratuity, arrears of salary, bonus and staff welfare fund to the tune of Rs.5000/-. 3) Shri M.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents vide order dated 18/1/2001 (Ann.6) decided to close down the unit on 20/3/2001 and a notice under Section 25F(A) was issued to terminate services of other employees for closure of the unit. Petitioner was directed to take compensation from the office upto 19/3/2001. The Advisor (A&M), RIICO Ltd., Jaipur wrote a letter to the respondent No.2 that the employees of the unit should be given benefit of voluntary retirement on certain conditions. On that basis, request of voluntary retirement was accepted. It was further argued that petitioner was not paid all the aforesaid benefits as voluntary retirement could not be granted under compulsion. 4) Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that so far as impugned-orders are concerned, they were passed because of the request of the voluntary retirement was made by the workman including the petitioner. In the normal course, respondents had decided to terminate their services but since the petitioner and other workmen requested SBCWP No.1299/01. 3 for their voluntary retirement, they have been given compulsory retirement. As regards the payment of revised pay scale, selection scale and other dues are concerned, it was argued that matter was already referred to Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and this issue cannot be allowed to be stated before this Court. 5) Petitioner cannot take any exception to the order of voluntary retirenemt, in my considered view, because same has been passed on their request upon closure of the watch assembly unit. Respondents had decided to retrench services of the employees but it was request of the employees that they instead granted them voluntary retirement. In fact, petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court, being delievered in SBCWP No.8971/01, challenging the order of their termination dated 14/9/2001 which was disposed of with other writ petitions. It was directed therein that the RIICO should make efforts to adjust the petitioner and other employees in their other units but at the same time option was given that if petitioner wants voluntary retirement submit claim to the respondents in view of the fact that majority of the employees have opted for voluntary retirement, petitioner and other employees can apply afresh within two months. Therefore due to the extended period of the aforesaid SBCWP No.1299/01. 4 judgment, petitioner opted for voluntary retirement. As regards the other benefits, it is noticed that in the pending reference proceedings concerning the workman of the respondents including petitioner, they would be entitled to claim benefit of 5th Pay Comission and other benefits. Question of payment of selection scale etc. shall also be decided in the aforesaid reference because that has been made on all the issues with reard to claim of the petitioner. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Same is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil