Sunil Kumar Singh v. M.P. Road Transport Corporation

1. Heard.

2. Seeking exception to an order dated 5.1.2016 passed by the writ court in W.P No. 15085/2010(S), this appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the M.P Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

3. The petitioner was working as L.D.C in the M.P State Road Transport Corporation and in accordance to a VRS Scheme introduced by the Corporation, the petitioner submitted his application. Thereafter, he withdrew his application for request for the VRS after it was granted by the Department. Challenging the Voluntary Retirement granted and contending that he has already withdrawn from the Scheme and, therefore, he cannot be voluntarily retired, a writ petition was filed. The writ petition having been dismissed, this appeal under section 2(1) of the Adhiniyam of 2005 has been filed.

4. Now the question of grant of VRS, its withdrawal and various other aspects with regard to the VRS scheme introduced by the M.P State Road Transport Corporation have been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment recently rendered on 29.8.2016 in Civil Appeal No. 4437 of 2009 and various other cases M.P State Road Transport Corporation v. Manoj Kumar and in view of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the principle laid down is once a VRS Scheme is introduced and an application is submitted seeking retirement under the said Scheme and once it is accepted then a concluded contract comes into play and VRS accepted cannot be withdrawn.

5. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, now no further indulgence into the matter is called for and the order passed in the writ petition cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, we find no error in the order passed in the writ petition. However, if the benefit of VRS and the monetary benefit granted to the petitioner has not been granted, the petitioner may claim the same by filing appropriate application and the respondents to decide it in accordance with law within a period of sixty days thereof.

6. With the aforesaid direction to the petitioner, now having no further indulgence to be made in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M.P State Road Transport Corporation (supra), this appeal stands dismissed. C.C as per rules.