New Delhi, July 1 (Inditop.com) Calling it a classic case of highhandedness by a state-run firm, the Delhi High Court has slapped a Rs.50,000 fine on Indian Road Construction Corporation Ltd (IRCC) while upholding the plea of an employee who applied for voluntary retirement 12 years ago without success.
Justice Kailash Gambhir in an order this month slapped the fine on IRCC and said, “The hapless petitioner has been facing the hostility of an unsympathetic and depraved employer for the past 12 years without any slip up by him.
“This is a fit case for awarding exemplary damages in condemnation of the abuse of power by a government corporation.”
The case pertains to G.K. Murthy who had been personal secretary to IRCC’s chief managing director since 1977 and applied for voluntary retirement in 1997. But his appeal was not approved by the government corporation – without any valid reason.
The court while directing the IRCC to accept Murthy’s retirement from 1997 also asked the corporation “to give me all the dues and benefits of the Fifth Pay Commission”.
It said, “This is a classic case of highhandedness on the part of a government corporation. IRCC instead of accepting the same rejected it on flimsy grounds and went to the extent of initiating a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, closing its eyes to its own fault and dismissing the petitioner for an alleged concealment and fraud which he never committed.”
“The hapless petitioner has been facing the hostility of unsympathetic and depraved employer for the past 12 years without any slip-up by him,” the judge noted in his order.
Opposing the petitioner’s claim, counsel for IRCC submitted that he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria and continued his service for many years and when he applied for the voluntary retirement scheme, a vigilance inquiry was already going on and under these circumstances, his plea was not accepted by the corporation.
However, counsel for the petitioner pleaded that he had made it clear during his appointment for the said post that he was a matriculate and could not complete his graduation on account of his official work.
“On the basis of this application and with the full knowledge that the petitioner was only a matriculate, the petitioner was appointed in the service. During the 20 years of service, the petitioner was promoted to various posts,” counsel for the petitioner submitted.
The judge said, “I feel the petitioner complied with all the formalities but still the respondent unnecessarily created a ruckus and made an objection, returning the application of the petitioner for sending it again.”
“The corporation returned the retirement application on the flimsy ground that the same was not recommended by the Head of Department (HOD) and therefore, should be sent again through the proper channel does not mean that the recommendation of the HOD was essential. Be that as it may, the respondent took more than two months to raise such an objection, knowing fairly well that the petitioner was due to retire in the next 24 days,” noted the judge.
“I do not feel that the petitioner ever concealed the fact of his being an under-graduate. Therefore, the enquiry officer reached to an incorrect finding in this regard and resultantly his dismissal order deserves to be quashed.
