Service Law

Voluntary retirement

— VRS — Nature of — Whether a proposal or an offer — Obligation, if any, of employer Port Trust to accept, and right, if any, of the employee to claim, voluntary retirement — Held, Port Trust has in terms of cls. 2(b) & (a) of VRS for Port Trusts and Dock Labour Boards as postulated in GoI (MoST) letter dated 29-8-1991, an absolute right to accept or not to accept the application for retirement under VRS — Chairman, VPT was competent to frame the scheme having regard to the exigencies of work and fix an upper age-limit for seeking voluntary retirement — Hence, no employee could claim voluntary retirement as of right — Further held, VRS was not a proposal or an offer but merely an invitation to treat and the applications filed by the employees constituted an offer — Hence, unless accepted in writing the application for voluntary retirement could not be effective — Where the application of one of the employees could not be considered as he was the juniormost and by the time the applications of his seniors was processed the required number of intended retirees had been arrived at and the application of another was not considered as his services were very much essential to the Department, held, High Court erred in directing the Port Trust to accept their voluntary retirement, (2006) 7 SCC 664-A

Constitution of India

— Art. 226 — Interference by High Court in service matters — Non-consideration of application for VRS alleged — Held, High Court cannot direct its acceptance — It can only direct its consideration, (2006) 7 SCC 664-B

Service Law

Voluntary retirement

— VRS — Power of Port Trust to modify VRS — Fixing of an upper age-limit of 58 years for seeking voluntary retirement, held, within the powers of Port Trust, (2006) 7 SCC 664-C