BOARD OF TRUSTEES, VISHAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST AND ORS. versus T.S.N. RAJU AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 758 · Decided: 06-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
A 
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, VISHAKHAPA TNAM PORT TRUST AND ORS. 
v. 
T.S.N. RAJU AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND T ARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Service law 
c 
Voluntary Retirement Scheme-Applicable to all Ports-Chairman of a 
Port Trust Board deciding that only those employees who were below age 
of 58 years were to be considered for benefit of scheme-Applicability to 
employee above that age-Port Trust rejecting their application-High Court 
directing acceptance of their cases-Correctness of-Held-VRS was not an 
offer but merely an invitation lo treat-Application of employees constituted 
D an offer which could not take effect till its acceptance in writing by Port Trust 
and could be rejected or accepted at absolute discretion of latter-Correctness 
of either the VRS or decision of Port Trust not to grant voluntary retirement 
to eve1J1one was not questioned-High Court overlooked that application of 
concerned employees could not be considered in view of their seniority in 
E 
service and it also did not find how they were disriminated against those who 
had been granted voluntary retirement-Direction for acceptance of their 
application was beyond jurisdiction of High Court. 
With a view to reduce surplus manpower, the Ministry of Shipping, Road 
Transport and highways came out with a scheme of voluntary retirement 
F (YRS) applicable to all the Ports. The Chairman of appellant decided that the 
VRS should be considered in the cases of those employees who are below the 
age of 58 years. Representation of respondent no.I and 2 for VRS was rejected 
by appellant. Aggrieved by non-consideration of their cases, they filed writ 
petitions in High Court. Single Judge allowed both the writ petitions with 
direction to appellant to consider and accept their VRS applications. In writ-
G appeal therefrom, Division Bench of High Court dismissed the appeals with 
directions to appellant to pass orders on the applications of the respondents 
within a period of one month. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant contended that (i) it is not mandatory for any organization to 
accept every application that is received from the employees seeking voluntary 
" 
H 
758 
AOARDOFTRUSTFES. VISHAKHAPATNAMPORTTRUST1·. T.S.N. RAJU 
759 
retirement (ii) the VRS scheme stipulated that voluntary retirement could A 
not be sought for as a matter of right (iii) it was authorized to take a decision 
to consider applications of only those employees who have not crossed 58 years 
of age and persons beyond that age were ineligible. 
Respondent contended that (i) the appellant had no discretion of refuse 
the offer to go on retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme except B 
in cases of the exigencies of service, compelling necessity or indispensability 
of the employees concerned (ii) appellant having accepted the offer of similarly 
placed employees who had also completed 57 and 58 years of age to go on 
voluntary basis, declining to permit the respondent to retire on voluntary 
retirement basis was discriminatory (iii) appellant had no authority to modify C 
the voluntary retirement scheme. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD 1. The request of the employees seeking voluntary retirement 
was not to take effect until and unless it was accepted in writing by the Port 
Trust Authorities. The Port Trust Authorities had the absolute discretion D 
whether to accept or reject the request of the employee seeking voluntary 
retirement under the scheme. There is no assurance that such an application 
would be accepted without any consideration. The process of acceptance of an 
offer made by an employee was in the discretion of the Port Trust. The VRS 
was not a proposal or an offer but merely an invitation to treat and the E 
applications filed by the employees constituted an offer. 1777-B-DI 
Bank of India and Ors. v. O.P. Swarnakar and Ors., 1200312 SCC 721 
and HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and Anr. v. Heavy 
Engineering Corpn. Ltd. and Ors., 120061 3 SCC 708, relied on. 
2.1. The High Court has not seen that the respondent's application for F 
voluntary retirement cannot be considered in view of the seniority of service 
of the employees concerned. It also did not mentiou how there was 
discrimination between those who have been granted voluntary retirement and 
those who have not. 1774-E; 777-A, Bl 
2.2. Case of Respondent No. 1 could not be considered for VRS oecause G 
several applications were pending and he wa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.