The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement of employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) is determined by the benefits maintained in the VRS and any negotiated settlement, and certain benefits claimed by the employees may not be covered under the VRS and the negotiated settlement.

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and Ms. Usha Barua, learned Standing Counsel, ASTC, representing the respondents. All these four petitions have been filed for setting aside the order dated 10.11.2005 passed by the Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation, for short, Corporation, whereby it has been held that the petitioners had been granted voluntary retirement dues under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and the letter dated 07.02.2002. It was also held that no further amount was due to the petitioners. In view of the above, since the writ petitions raise common questions of law and fact, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. A detailed recital of the facts of the individual writ petition, given the issues involved, may not be necessary. Suffice it to say that the petitioners and/or predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were regular employees of Corporation which was staring at a total closure due to financial losses suffered by the Corporation. Several remedial measures were taken up to revive the Corporation and one of the measures was relating to adoption of a VRS supported by Central Government. The pleadings in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit filed do not disclose the exact date on which the VRS was framed and brought into operation. The scheme was entirely financed by the Central Government as an additional central assistance to the Government of Assam. The VRS was also subject matter of WP(C)(PIL) 24 of 1999, which was disposed of on 25.01.2002.

3. To facilitate convenience, for the purpose of disposal of the writ petitions, reference would be made from the pleadings in WP(C) No. 391 of 2006.

4. It will appear from materials available on record that VRS had been effected to the employees in three phases.

5. The Writ Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising a common grievance pertaining to non-payment of benefits accrued to them under the provisions of the VRS. 32 Writ Petitions were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 17.05.2005. All these petitioners had obtained voluntary retirement under the Second Phase. This Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 held as follows:

14. The whole purpose of offering the Scheme was to get rid of such employees in the 2nd Phase itself but the Corporation did not find much encouragement from the employees and the desired number of employees did not come forward. In the 3rd Phase however the aforesaid bar was abolished. That apart those employees who were facing such bar during the course of implementation of the 2nd phase of the scheme were directed to refund the salaries for certain period to make them cover under the Scheme. Under such circumstances, particularly in view of the total abolition of such bar in the 3rd phase, it is difficult to uphold the contention of the Corporation that the direction to deposit salary for a particular period which were deducted/directed to be deposited by/from the petitioners was validly made for providing them the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

It has been submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to get the benefit under letter No. ASTC/HO/VRS/02/42 Date 7.2.02. Ms. Barua submitted the Scheme as it was originally formulated in which it was stated that the arrear salary were proposed to be paid to such employees for the month of May 2000 to April 2001, the provision regarding the arrear salaries should be maintained. In view of the subsequent modification of the Scheme, modifying the condition for acceptance of voluntary retirement, particularly in view of the negotiated acceptance by the Corporation on 7.2.02, it is difficult to accept the contention