Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11221 of 2019 Petitioner :- All India Textile Mazdoor Janta Union Amroha And 39 Others Respondent :- State Of Up Through Principal Secretary Industries Devp. Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Ravi Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Awasthi
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Forty petitioners have joined this writ petition for the common relief. They were working on different posts in Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Katai Mills Ltd., Amroha. In paragraph-5 of the writ petition the petitioners have averred their date of appointment and name of the posts, on which they were working. It is stated that the said mill was running in loss and it was closed in the year 2010.
The grievance of the petitioners is that they have applied for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) pursuant to the Government orders issued in this regard, but the benefit of VRS has not been extended to them.
A similarly placed person of a sister unit at Mau-Aima has approached this Court by means of Writ-A No. 37291 of 2016 (Kallu v. State of U.P. and others), for the same relief. This Court vide order of the date has disposed of the said writ petition with certain directions. The order passed in Kallu (supra) reads as under:
"The petitioner claims that he was working on the post of Dafar in the Engineering Department of Mau-Aima Sahkari Katai Mills Ltd., which was a unit of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Spinning Mills Federation. The said mill at Mau-Aima was running in huge loss and consequently, it was closed in the year 2000 and the employees working in the said mill were out of employment. Keeping in view the said fact, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 29th April, 2010 introducing Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) for the employees. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent issued an order dated 06th May, 2010 to all sister units for providing benefit of VRS to its employees. The State Government has again now issued another Government Order dated 23rd April, 2012 offering the option of VRS to the remaining workers. A copy of the said Government Order is on the record. The petitioner in response to the said Government order and consequential notice issued by the third respondent dated 11th May, 2012 has opted to take VRS from the post of Dafar.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent is providing the benefit of the Government order to some of the workers on pick and choose basis and the benefit of VRS has not been extended to the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition mainly for the following relief:
"b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to provide the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme with interest to the petitioner."
The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation dated 06th August, 2012 made by the petitioner for redressal of his grievance may be directed to be considered by the authority concerned.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the first respondents. Sri Vinod Kumar, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the second and third respondents. With their consent the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved by issuing a direction upon the third respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs."
Learned counsel for the respondents do not have any objection in case this writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms.
Having regard to the facts of this case, this writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms, as in Kallu (supra), by issuing a direction upon the third respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass the appropriate order on their representation dated 06th August, 2012, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioners are at liberty to file afresh representation along with certified copy of this order within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Brijesh