The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26358 of 2024 Chairman Cum Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi and others …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Umesh Chandra Mohanty, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Santosh Kumar Pattanaik, Advocate -versus- Sanjibani Raha …. Opp. Party(s) Mr. Nirmal Ranjan Routray, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA Order No. ORDER 09.07.2025 06. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard Mr. Umesh Chanda Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nirmal Ranjan Routray, learned counsel for the opposite party. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 25.04.2024 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.20 of 2020 so also the order dated
Legal Reasoning
09.07.2024 passed in R.A. No.12 of 2024 arising out of Page 1 of 10 the said O.A.
Legal Reasoning
It appears that the opposite party Smt. Sanjibani Raha filed the O.A. No.20 of 2020 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack challenging the action of the petitioners in accepting her VRS in spite of withdrawal of the application within the time limit as prescribed in B.S.N.L. Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 with a further prayer to quash the order dated 02.01.2020 and 31.02.2020 and to allow her to be reinstated in the former post and continue until her superannuation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred
Decision
to the Scheme, which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1. The Scheme is called B.S.N.L. Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 remained open from 04.11.2019 up to 03.12.2019 (5:30 P.M.) and the effective date of voluntary retirement under the Scheme will be 31.01.2020 (A/N). Relevant portion of the Scheme was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner which provides the procedure to be adopted for submitting the option to voluntarily retire from the service and Clause-7 deals with the same and the relevant provision is enumerated hereunder:- “7(iii) The option once exercised under this Scheme shall be final and decision of the competent authority shall be binding on the Page 2 of 10 concerned employee(s). Provided that the employee(s) will be allowed to withdraw the option only once at any time till the closing time and date of option. Provided further that the request for withdrawal of option shall be submitted online along with signed copy in writing.” The step by step guide for exercising the option for the VRS, 2019 is also appended as a part of Annexure-II and relevant part of the same is quoted herein below:- “6. The eligible employees shall fill the option form through ESS portal and take three printouts, sign all of them in blue ink and submit the signed copies to their respective controlling officer within 3 days of submitting the online option. One copy will have to be pasted in Service Book, second copy will be sent to the competent authority for acceptance of VRS and on third copy, the employee will take acknowledgement.” The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the employees were required to take a printout of their final option opted or withdrawn in ESS Portal and submit the same to the controlling Page 3 of 10 authority for further processing as per the administrative requirement under the Scheme and submission of the hardcopy was not a mandatory prerequisite for withdrawing the option of VRS. While opting the VRS or withdrawing it, the employees would see the approximate benefits of VRS and also choose to decide later through a given Tab on the portal and therefore, the option subsisting on the ESS Portal at the end of the of the option period i.e. 5.30 P.M. on 03.12.2019. The necessity of submitting the printout (hardcopy) of the subsisting online option was only related to the final option on the ESS Portal and an employee was not required to submit the printout of every changing option. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the final subsisting option on ESS Portal at 5.30 P.M. on 03.12.2019 would have the effect of obliterating the earlier option/withdrawal. It is further argued that more than 78000 employees of BSNL opted for VRS under BSNL VRS Scheme, 2019 and all of them have retired from service with effect from 31.01.2020 as prescribed under the Scheme and those cases have already been settled with all payments i.e. ex-gratia, E.L, encashment, GPF, Commutation of pension and gratuity under the Scheme. Page 4 of 10 So far as the case of the opposite party is concerned, all the three options, opting, withdrawing and then again opting were completed on 08.11.2019 and it would be evident that the only last online option that is opting for VRS would survive as per the Scheme. The opposite party chose to write an application on 25.11.2019 for withdrawing the subsisting online option for VRS and no physical application was permissible under the Scheme and no controlling authority or competent authority were authorized to entertain such application for withdrawal not submitted through online but physically. Learned counsel further argued that the voluntary retirement of the opposite party was processed by the Circle Administration with effect from 31.01.2020 and the payments of ex-gratia for an amount of Rs.23,00,000/- and terminal leave encashment of Rs.4,18,915/- was also been made and the learned Tribunal has committed illegality in quashing the order accepting voluntary retirement of the opposite party with effect from 31.01.2020 and ordering her reinstatement after four years of the VRS and, therefore, the order is to be set aside. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand has relied upon the counter affidavit to justify the impugned order passed by the learned Page 5 of 10 Central Administrative Tribunal. It is stated that the specific case of the opposite party is that she has not signed the copy of the withdrawal of option along with the online application and the signed copy was submitted only once on 25.11.2019. It is further argued that the plea of payment of ex-gratia, terminal benefit and receiving of pension have been stated for the first time in the writ petition and there is no such pleading either in the counter affidavit or in the additional counter affidavit, which has been filed before the learned Tribunal. A new case is being potrayed before this court. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the learned Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order and also dismissing the Review Petition and directing the petitioners to consider the case of the opposite party for reinstatement in accordance with rules and formalities and to pass the consequential orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the case of State Bank of Patiala vrs. Phoolpati reported in 2005 (3) SCC 88, wherein it is held as thus:- “A complete and effective act of resigning office is one which serves the link of the resign or with his office and terminates his tenure. Page 6 of 10 This position was highlighted by a constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Ors. [1978] 2 SCC 301, and re-iterated in Balram Gupta v. Union of India and Anr., [1987] Supp. SCC 228, J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr., [1998] 9 SCC 559, Nand Keshwar Prasad v. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Corporative Ltd. and Ors. [1998] 5 SCC 461 and Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India Ltd., AIR (2002) SC 1341. In the instant case the factual position clearly shows that late Hari Ram had tendered his resignation which was sought to be withdrawn. But the withdrawal was not accepted and subsequently there was reiteration of the prayer for voluntary resignation. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of appellant-Bank reliving late Hari Ram w.e.f. 5.3.2002 consequent upon accepting his prayer for resignation.” The cited case as relied upon by the petitioner is quite distinguishable as the same relates to regular resignation but not under any VRS Scheme. In the case Page 7 of 10 in hand, the learned Tribunal after taking note of the pleadings of the parties and the contentions so also the provisions of the Scheme as per Clauses-7 & 8 has arrived at the follows conclusion:- “9. The applicant had applied for VRS on 08.11.2019 withdraw it on same date and then again reapplied for VRS. All the said actions were done well before the stipulated closing date of the scheme. As per the scheme request for withdrawal of option shall be submitted online along with singed copy in writing which the applicant had done so. It is seen from records that the applicant had not submitted the hard copy of option for withdrawal of the scheme which is mandated as per the scheme. Therefore, the first withdrawal is no withdrawal as per the Scheme and the second withdrawal which was submitted on a hard copy is to be treated as the only option for withdrawal submitted by the applicant. Further it is seen from the scheme that just submission of option or withdrawal from VRS is not final. As per clause 8 (vii) the competent authority had the final say on whether to accept it or reject it. Therefore when there was no withdrawal Page 8 of 10 option submitted through hard copy, which is mandated as per the scheme, at first instance and she had categorically mentioned it in her representation that she wanted to withdraw her VRS option, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider and act upon it. It is not the case that it could not be done since the competent authority had the discretion to accept or reject. The competent authority should have considered the case of the applicant since she had done it well within the stipulated period. Accordingly we find the action of the Respondents in not considering her option and representations for withdrawal of her VRS as illegal and bad in law. Therefore the impugned orders dated 02.01.2020 and 31.02.2020 as far as applicant is concerned is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for reinstatement in accordance with rules and formalities and pass consequential orders as regards to it within a period of 90 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.” In view of the Scheme, it is apparent that even though it is mentioned that the option once exercised shall be final and the decision of the competent Page 9 of 10 authority shall be binding on the concerned employees, but so far as the withdrawal of the option is concerned, even though it is stated that it is to be done only once till the closing time and date of option, but it further requires that the request of withdrawal of the option shall be submitted online along with the signed copy in writing. Therefore, when the first option was given, no hardcopy was submitted and it was only submitted on 25.11.2019 and hence, the learned Tribunal is quite justified in its conclusion as has been observed in paragraph No.9, as quoted above. Therefore, we do not find any perversity in the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.20 of 2020 so also the order dated 09.07.2024 passed in R.A. No.12 of 2024 arising out of the said O.A. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Writ Petition. Hence, dismissed. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Ashok/Swarna Judge (S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Jul-2025 19:40:18 Page 10 of 10