WP/4612/1999 of R.Sudhakar, Vs M/s Indian Immmunologicals, on 31 December 2007

ORDER:

The short question that falls for consideration in this Writ Petitionis whether the petitioners are entitled for the benefits of revised scalesof pay consequent on the V Pay Commission recommendations witheffect from 1-1-1996 till the date of their retirement under the VoluntaryRetirement Scheme (VRS) ?

Admittedly, petitioners, who were working with the 1[st]respondent, on introduction of VRS, applied for voluntary retirement inpursuance of the Circular dated 8/9-10-1997 and they were permittedto retire voluntarily during April/June,1997. The terminal benefits werecomputed on the basis of the last drawn pay/emoluments. Thegrievance of the petitioners is that though retired voluntarily duringApril/June,1997 and received all the terminal benefits, they are entitledfor pay and allowances and also other consequential benefits withretrospective effect from 1-1-1996 as per the revised pay scales of1996. Respondent No.1 allowed the benefit of revised pay scalesbased on the recommendations of the V Pay Commission witheffect from 1-1-1996 to all the employees; whereas, the said benefitwas not extended to them stating that they were not in service as on27-4-1998, though the benefits were given with retrospective effectfrom 1-1-1996. Thus, the only objection of the respondents is thatsince the petitioners were not on the rolls as on the date ofimplementation of the revised pay scales consequent on the centralpay scale pattern as per the recommendations of the V Pay Commission, they are not entitled for the benefits.

Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended thatwhen the petitioners retried voluntarily during April/June,1997, thescheme of extending the revised pay scales to them does not arise. There was no relationship of master and servant between the 1[st]respondent and the petitioners, once the VRS has been implementedand the petitioners retired from service and were paid all the benefitsas per the Scheme. The revised pay scales, as implemented by therespondents from 1-1-1996 as per the recommendations of theV Pay Commission, have no relevance to the case of the petitioners,since they were not in service as on the date of implementation of therevised pay scales i.e. 27-4-1998. Merely because the petitionerswere in service as on 1-1-1996, they are not entitled for the benefits,which have been accrued to the employees working in theorganization as on the date of implementation of the revision of payscales. Learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court to clause7.1 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme,1997, which reads as under:

“7.1 : An employee availing voluntary retirement under theScheme shall not be eligible for re-employment in any other companyor concern belonging to the same management. There will not beany claim of whatsoever nature, from an employee availing voluntaryretirement scheme including for reinstatement, re-employment, orany other.”

and submitted that in view of the above, it must be deemed that thepetitioners were excluded from the benefit of revised pay scales.

In fact, there is no such indication in the said clause. What allclause 7.1, noticed above, states is that there will not be any claimwhatsoever nature from an employee availing the VRS includingreinstatement, re-employment or any other, that is to say, that there iscomplete cessation of employment. But, that does not mean that thesaid clause excludes any of the claims for which the petitioners are

Facts

entitled for the period they had actually worked in the organization. Though they have retired from service during April/June,1997, sincethey were in active service as on 1-1-1996 till the date of theirretirement, they are also entitled for the benefit under the revised payscales on par with those employees, who were in service as on 27-4-1998. Clause 7.1 or any other clause of the VRS does not prohibitclaiming of any benefits that may be conferred with retrospective effecton the employees by the organization, particularly in view of revision ofpay scales as per the recommendations of the V Pay Commission. The implementation of the recommendations of the V Pay Commissionfrom 1-1-1996 would indicate that as on 1-1-1996 the commission hasalready sat and recommendations were in offing and it is the legitimateexpectation of the employees that any benefit that may accrue as perthe recommendations of V Pay Commission would be extended tothem. In view of the fact that there is no exclusion clause in the VRSapplied in case of the petitioners, the decision relied upon by thelearned counsel for the respondents in HEC VOLUNTARYRETD.EMPLOYEES WELFARE SOCIETY v. HEAVY

ENGINEERING CORPORATION LIMITED[[1]]has no relevance to the facts of this case. In the said case, it was held as under:

“26. Considering the matter from that context, we are of theopinion that it cannot be said that the Company intended to extend thesaid benefits to those who had opted for voluntary retirement. Clause3.2 of the circular includes only those who were on the rolls of theCorporation as on 1-1-1992, as also those who ceased to be inservice on that date on account of superannuation or death. Theappellants do not come in the said category. In view of the fact thatthey have not been expressly included within the purview thereof, weare of the opinion that although they have not been excluded byclause 3.3, they would be deemed to be automatically excluded.”

In fact, as per the above paragraph, Clause 3.2 of the Circular thereinincludes only those who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1-1-1992 as also those who ceased to be in service as on thatday on account of superannuation or death. Further, clause 3.3 of theScheme therein, which excluded the applicability of the Scheme,categorically states that the same shall not be applicable to those whowere on the rolls of the Corporation as on the said date, butsubsequently left the service of the respondents for the reasons statedthereunder, viz.,, dismissal, discharge, resignation without permission,resignation in cases of disciplinary action etc. Under thosecircumstances, the apex Court has held that the appellants therein,who retired under VRS and were not included in Clause 3.3 shall betreated as excluded employees and thus the relief was denied to theappellants therein, who retired under the VRS.

In the scheme evolved by the 1[st] respondent-company on 27-4-1998 it is stated that it has been decided torevise the pay scales of Indian Immunologicals employees. Clause1.1 of the said Order reads as under:

“These pay scales shall be effective from 1-1-1996”

In the entire scheme, there is no exclusion of a particular category ofemployees for the purpose of receiving benefits under the Scheme. Nowhere it is stated that the employees, who have already retiredunder the VRS or otherwise are not entitled for the benefits of revisedpay scales. Therefore, the theory of exclusion cannot be applied to thecase of petitioners and the petitioners are entitled for all the benefits asper the Circular dated 27-4-1998, since Clause 1.1 of the said Circularin unambiguous terms indicates that the revised pay scales shall beeffective from 1-1-1996. The scheme dated 27-4-1998 or any of itsprovisions are not similar to that of Clauses 3.2 and 3.3 discussed inthe judgment of the Apex Court.

For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that in terms of the Circular dated 27-4-1998, the petitioners, since they were in service ason 1-1-1996, are entitled for all the benefits of the revised pay scalesas per V Pay Commission recommendations and are also entitled forall the benefits as per their last drawn pay as would be fixed as per therevised pay scales with effect from 1-1-1996 with all consequentialbenefits thereof.

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Noorder s to costs.

prk

31-12-2007

[1]2006(3) SCC 7082006(3) SCC 708