Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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