JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to be paid as per the Early Retirement Scheme as applicable in India on 08.07.2002. A decree is also sought for Rs.55 lacs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

2. It is contended by the plaintiff in the plaint that she was the H.R. Manager of the defendant. She was employed for more than 28 years with the defendant having joined the company on 20.05.1974 as Secretary to Assistant to Manager, Northern India in Delhi. After several promotions, on 1.7.2001 she was appointed HR Manager, South Asia in the Management Grade IMG2. It is stated that after 28 years of diligent service, the services of the plaintiff were wrongfully and illegally terminated on 8.7.2002.

3. It is further contended that on the said date, namely, 8.7.2002 she was called by the Department Head Ms.Amanda Ball. There she was informed that her job has been merged with another newly created role of Corporate Affairs, which she was not qualified to handle and therefore she was required to leave. It is contended that the said Ms.Amanda Ball while informing the plaintiff of the above decision gave the plaintiff two options, namely, (i) to resign from defendant No.1 with immediate effect or (ii) to have the Contract of Employment terminated with three months’ pay. The said Ms.Amanda Ball had drafts of both letters ready with her. No time was given to the plaintiff inasmuch as she had to take a decision there and then as to which of the two letters she would choose. She was also told that in case she resigns she will receive a compensation under the U.K. Severance Policy i.e. one and half week’s salary for every year of service upto a maximum of 30 weeks. If her services were terminated, she would not be entitled to this amount. Plaintiff sought to advise the said Ms. Amanda Ball that there was a Local ERS Scheme for staff in India which entitled her to 56 months’ salary for her 28 years of service i.e. 2 months salary for each year of service. But Ms. Amanda Ball did not listen to the view of the plaintiff. Under duress, it is submitted that the plaintiff finally wrote a letter stating that she would like to apply for ?Corporate Business Response Scheme. Promptly, she was handed over a letter of acceptance acknowledging her application under the ?Corporate Business Response Scheme stating that plaintiff had tendered her resignation which had been accepted by the defendant.

4. Plaintiff on 25.7.2002 is said to have written an appeal to Mr. Andy Stern, General Manager where she gave complete facts about the manner in which she was forced to submit her letter dated 8.7.2002 opting for the Corporate Business Response Scheme whereas she was entitled to receive compensation under a local ERS Scheme. It is stated that Mr. Stern assured the plaintiff that she would be treated fairly, but stopped responding after an official meeting with the plaintiff at the British Airways Office in Gurgaon on 12.08.2002. On 02.09.2002, Mr. Stern wrote to the plaintiff that Mr.Cyril Daniels, the plaintiff’s successor would handle all correspondence. In despair, it is stated that the plaintiff on 8.10.2002 sent an appeal to Mr. Neil Robertson. Mr.Robertson on 09.10.2002 took time to look into the matter and finally replied on 28.10.2002 justifying the action of the defendant.

5. Subsequent correspondence from the defendant emanated whereby Mr.Cyril Daniels on behalf of the defendant offered to the plaintiff Severance Settlement which was four week’s pay for every year of service subject to a maximum of 54 weeks. It is the contention of the plaintiff that this formula offered by the defendant is as per Voluntary Severance Scheme launched by the defendant in October 2003 whereas the plaintiff had ceased to be an employee of the defendant company in July 2002. Hence, the said formula