LexMANJUSHREE PATHAK versus THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
...
MANJUSHREE PATHAK
v.
THE ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
AUGUST 31, 1999
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.J
Service Law-Voluntary retirement-Constitution of India, Articles 12
A
B
and 14-AIDC Voluntary Retirement Scheme 1992, Clause 8.1-Appellant C
on December 7, 1995 seeking voluntary retirement with immediate eflect-
Recommending authority recommending acceptance of application on same
day but Managing Director not acting on request-Appellant sending
reminders and han,ding over charge on February 15, 1996-Appe/lant on
February 17, 1996 receiving notice from Respondent Corporation asking to
show cause for indulging in political activities amounting to misconduct- D
Held, the Managing Director of the Corporation had/ailed to act reasonably
and fairly and abdicated his duty by not exercising his discretion; Clause
8. 1 did not confer unfettered discretion upon the corporation being an
authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution-A/DC Limited
(Employees) Service Rules 1992 and A/DC limited Recruitment and 0 romotion I:
Rules 1992, Rule 18-Administrative Law.
The Appeliant having served the respondent Corporation for nearly 23
years and attaining the age of 42 years, made an application on December 7,
1995 seeking voluntary retirement with immediate effect under the AIDC
Voluntary retirement Scheme, 1992 ('Scheme'). The recommending authority F
on the same day recommended acceptance of her voluntary retirement. The
Managing Director, However, did not act on the request despite the appt:llant
sending three reminders. The appellant handed over charge on December 15,
1996 and requested for release of retirement benefits.
On December 17, 1996 the appellant received a show cause notice which G
stated that she had participated in political activities which amounted to
misconduct. Challenging this notice, the appellant filed a writ petition in the
High Court seeking a declaration that she was no longer an employee of the
Corporation .
Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition. DM:;k.11 Bc11d1, H
53
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A on an appeal by the respondent Corporation, reversed the order of the Single
Judge.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1. The Managing Director of the Corporation had failed to act
B reasonably and fairly. He abdicated his duty by not exercising discretion at
all. He ought to have exercised his discretion as per Clause 8.l. If not
immediately at least within a reasonable time. [60-E-F)
I.I. The respondent-Corporation being an authority coming within the
C purview of Article 12 of the Constitution could not abdicate its duty to act
reasonably and fairly. The Scheme conferred discretion on the Corporation
under Clause 8.1 coupled with a duty to act judiciously when application for
voluntary retirement was made by an employee. [60-DJ
D
E
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4827 of2000.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.97 of the Gauhati High Court
at Assam in W.A. No. 124 of 1996.
Ms. U. Hazarika and Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Appellant.
S. Ravindra Bhat for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL, J. Leave granted.
In this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated
5 .12.1997 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland,
Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh at Gauhati
made in Writ Appeal No. 124/96. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of this
G appeal are the following.
The appellant joined the services of the respondent-Corporation in 1973
as Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator. After passing LL.B degree
examination, she was promoted to the post of legal Assistant in 1981.
Subsequently she was promoted as Assistant Law Officer, Law Officer and
H finally as Senior Law Officer in 1995 [re-designated as Deputy Manager
-
MANJUSHREE PATHAK v. ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. [PATIL, J.] 55
(Law)].
In 1992 the respondent-Corporation issued a special scheme "AIDC
Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1992" (for short the 'Scheme') as a special
measure in the form of a golden handshake providing an option to its employees
A
for voluntary retirement who had completed I 0 years of service in the B
Corporation or 40 years of age.
The appellant having served the respondent-Corporation for nearly 23
years and attaining the age of 42 yearsExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.