UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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.

 

Latest Legal News