Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Inadvertently Withdrew From The BSNL VRS Due To A Technical Glitch: High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Decision in BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Delhi, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur, upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision in the case concerning the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2019. The case revolved around the petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, who inadvertently withdrew from the BSNL VRS due to a technical glitch and sought redressal for the same.

In the detailed judgment, the High Court meticulously analyzed the procedural aspects and the contractual nature of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Court stated, "The entire case set up by the petitioner is that the petitioner had vide his application dated November 19, 2019 (through online submission and then submitting three physical copies) had opted for Voluntary Retirement under the Scheme." This highlighted the crux of the petitioner’s argument concerning the accidental withdrawal from the scheme.

The Court further elaborated on the contractual obligations under the VRS, applying principles from the Indian Contract Act, 1872. “In our judgment rendered on 03.01.2024 in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Chopra v. BSNL & Others, we have already held that the present VRS-2019 is contractual in nature and not statutory in character and provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 would apply,” the Bench clarified.

The High Court also underscored the importance of procedural compliance in such schemes. It emphasized that, “the issue before us is whether the option of VRS as opted by the petitioner was in compliance with the procedure and whether the respondent failed to treat the representation by petitioner as per the scheme.”

The judgment meticulously dissected the facts and legal provisions, ultimately concurring with the Tribunal's decision. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating, "Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the findings rendered by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed."

Date of Decision: January 03, 2024

RAJESH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

 

Similar News