“The court cannot but condemn circuitous ways (of the government) to cast out uncomfortable employees. As a model employer, the government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees,” a Bench of Dr D P Sharma and N D Dayal of CAT observed in its written order, released on Wednesday.
The Bench was referring to the case of M L Jain, former vice-president of India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC), who was hastily “relieved” from duty after 34 years of government service. His only “indiscretion” was he wanted to postpone an official transfer to organise his daughter’s wedding. “In the modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to (be certain about) one’s future. Flexibility is required, and if it does not jeopardise government or administration, they should be graceful enough to acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude,” the Bench said.
Jain, a resident of Gautam Budh Nagar, had worked outside Delhi for 25 years. When he received a transfer order to Kolkata as vice-president (East) on February 17, 2005, he wrote back requesting permission to operate from Delhi as preparations for his daughter’s wedding on July 13, 2005, were already underway.
Later, Jain wrote to ITDC again saying he was willing to opt for voluntary retirement as there was “no other male member in the family” and he had to make the necessary wedding arrangements.
Shortly after, Jain received a response from ITDC allowing him to continue in the Capital till the end of July, following which he had to join duty at Kolkata.
Happy with the response, Jain immediately expressed his wish to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement, but much to his chagrin, found that he had instead been relieved.
Jain told CAT he had requested for voluntary retirement only because he thought there was no other way he could be present for his daughter’s wedding. He also questioned why the ITDC had unexpectedly chosen to relieve him from service in “undue haste” and with “malafide intention” shortly after they agreed to defer his transfer till after the wedding.
ITDC contended before the Tribunal that Jain “wanted to stay in Delhi and for that purpose he put pressure on the respondent (ITDC) by opting for voluntary retirement”
“The applicant (Jain) has no right to withdraw his request, when his request for voluntary retirement had already been accepted by the ITDC management. No communication is required to be given,” the Corporation maintained, adding that his relieving from service was deferred only because of lack of funds to settle his claims.
Dismissing the ITDC’s arguments, however, the Bench ordered it to pay the entire arrears of salary due to Jain. “Much complication, which had arisen, could have been avoided by graceful attitude,” the Bench concluded.
Cortesy: Indian Express
