The court affirmed the entitlement of an employee to arrears of salary and retiral benefits based on a pay scale revision, even after being deemed to have resigned from service.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

2. The facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:

The petitioner, who is a B.E.(Civil) graduate, had joined in the services of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, on 2. 1987, as per the order of recruitment, dated 1. 1987, issued by the second respondent. On his successful completion of the training, he was confirmed in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, vide proceedings, dated 16. 1989, issued by the Chief Personnel Manager, the fourth respondent herein. Later, by the proceedings, dated 11. 1992, issued by the second respondent, the petitioner had been promoted as an Executive Engineer (Civil) and he was posted to Mines-II. While so, the respondents had introduced a scheme, by the proceedings, dated 12. 1994, for the granting of Extra Ordinary Leave to the Executives of the respondent Corporation, belonging to the various engineering disciplines at E3 and E4 levels and the civil engineers at all levels, in order to enable them to apply and secure employment abroad, either through the Overseas Man Power Corporation limited or through the other available sources.

3. It has been further stated that under the said scheme, the period of Extra Ordinary Leave shall not exceed two years. However, in exceptional cases, the extension could be granted by the Chairman of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, upto one year, subject to certain conditions. Clause 10 of the scheme had specifically provided that the Executives, who avail the Extra Ordinary Leave under the said scheme and who did not rejoin duty on the date of the expiry of the leave granted/extended to them, shall be deemed to have voluntarily resigned their appointments in the respondent Corporation, with effect from his/her date of proceeding on leave. Thus, the master and servant relationship between the respondent Corporation and the concerned executive comes to an end automatically, on the failure of the concerned executive to rejoin duty on the specified date of the expiry of Extra Ordinary Leave.

4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had been sanctioned Extra Ordinary Leave by the Chief General Manager (P&A), vide his proceedings, dated 110. 1995, to enable the petitioner to take up employment abroad. Clause 8 of the said proceedings had stated that if the petitioner does not rejoin duty on the date of the expiry of the leave granted to him, he shall be deemed to have voluntarily resigned his appointment in the respondent Corporation, with effect from the date of his proceeding on leave, after the recovery of three months pay and any other amount due from him would be recovered from the outstanding amount payable to him from the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited. Even though the scheme did not provide for any recovery, the proceedings, dated 110. 1995, had authorized such recovery. Such a provision in the proceedings is inconsistent with the scheme and therefore, it is illegal.

5. The petitioner has further stated that he was sanctioned Extra Ordinary Leave, initially, for a period of 2 years, with effect from 110. 1995, or the date of release whichever is later. Pursuant to the proceedings, dated 110. 1995, the third respondent, by a memo, dated 110. 1995, had relieved the petitioner from his duties in the respondent Corporation, on 110. 1995, and the petitioner had joined the foreign employer immediately thereafter. Since the foreign employer had requested the petitioner to seek for extension of Extra Ordinary Leave for one more year, as the work entrusted to him had not been completed, the petitioner had, by a letter, dated 15. 1997, had sought for extension of Extra Ordinary Leave for a further period of one year, as he was entitled to such an extension, under Clause 2 of the scheme. However, the then Chief General Manager (P&A) had declined to grant the extension of leave by his memo, dated 8. 1997. Further, he had threatened the petitioner with disciplinary ac