The court established that the petitioners were entitled to further 50% of ex-gratia and the entire VRS ex-gratia of 100% should be calculated on the basis of 26 days a month.

JUDGMENT :

D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Challenge has been made to the inaction of the opposite parties for non-payment of the Voluntarily Retirement Scheme (in short ‘VRS’) amount in accordance with Department of Public Enterprises Guidelines (hereinafter called as ‘the guidelines’).

2. Since the above writ petitions have got common question of law, they are being taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

FACTS

3. The factual matrix leading to the writ petitions is that the petitioners are the employees of Hotel Nilachal Ashok, Puri having been appointed in between 1989 to 1991. The Indian Tourism Development Corporation is primarily a Central Government Public Undertaking (hereafter called as “the ITDC”) and it entered into a joint venture agreement with the State Government of Odisha to establish the hotel Nilachal Ashok under the joint venture company Utkal Ashok Hotel Corporation Limited in 1986. According to the petitioners, they were paid their salary whenever there is revision of scale of pay of the State Government employees. The employees of Hotel Nilachal Ashok were being paid the salary as per the rules and regulations of the State Government being a Public Sector Undertaking following the resolution passed in 21st Board Meeting of Utkal Ashok Hotel Corporation. In 2011, there was an offer for voluntary retirement as Hotel Nilachal Ashok wanted to change the management with M/s.Paulmech Infrastructure Private Limited by notice dated 22.01.2011. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted offer for their voluntary retirement as per the guidelines. The proposals for voluntary retirement of the petitioners were accepted and they were relieved. But on the date of their relieve, the petitioners were handed over cheque towards VRS amount.

The petitioners were not paid the 100% ex-gratia compensation @ 30 days per month although they were entitled to such payment. According to the guideline issued on 5.5.2000, the payment of 100% ex-gratia under the Scheme, were purportedly not paid but 50% thereof has been paid. Moreover, other benefits under the Scheme of 2002 vide Annexures-7 and 8 were not followed. So, the petitioners approached the head office where they were assured that extra 50% dues along with one month pay for the notice period would be paid but the promise of the employer was not maintained. So, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

4. SUBMISSIONS

Mrs.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the opposite parties floated the VRS Scheme for the employees, who are not willing to serve under the new management, the petitioners applied for their voluntary retirement. Moreover, when the Scheme as per the guidelines was offered and the petitioners applied to avail the benefit of the same, the opposite parties, in violation of their own commitment, did not pay the VRS amount in accordance with the guidelines.

5. Ms.Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the guideline dated 5.5.2000 was very specific to offer voluntary retirement for the interest of the Public Sector Enterprise to down size the manpower. On 8.12.2000, another guideline was issued by the Department where salary of one month/three months notice was allowed to be paid. Moreover, the employees who have not drawn full salary of the notice period, the notice period pay would be admissible to them. These two conditions were not complied by the opposite parties.

6. It is further contended that the guidelines were again modified on 6.11.2001 where the ex-gratia payment in respect of the employees on pay scales at 1.1.87 and 1.1.92 levels computed under existing pay scales in accordance with the extant scheme, shall be increased by 100% and 50% respectively. Again another guidelines was issued on 28.2.2002 where it is clarified that the pay revision permitted by the Public Sector Enterprises for a period prior to the date of effect from 1.1.92 would be treated as 87’ level. Thus increasing on