Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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