Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN MONGA, J.
Jagjit Singh and others - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 15530, 15951, 17360, 24901 of 2012, 555, 10803, 13871, 14002, 21089, 26762, 10799 of 2013
Decided On : 16-10-2019
K.S. Boparai, Adv., H.S. Saggu, Adv., K.R. Dhawan, Adv., R.S. Joon, Adv., H.S. Batth, Adv., Anu Chatrath, Adv., Ambika Bedi, Adv., Vikas Singh, Adv.
Employees who voluntarily accept a VRS are bound by its conditions and cannot challenge its validity. The interpretation of the definition of 'salary' in the VRS is based on legal precedents and entitles employees to specific benefits.
Headnote:
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME - Employment Dispute - VRS - Clause 10(ix) of VRS - Clause 3(v) of VRS - Article 14 of Constitution of India - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II) West Bengal vs. Vivekananda Vidyamandir and others - Manipal Academy of Higher Education vs. Provident Fund Commissioner - Kichha Sugar Company Limited through General Manager vs. Tarai Chini Mill Majdoor Union, Uttarakhand - BS Baidwan & Ors VS. Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. & Ors
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, former employees of the Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, sought to quash the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and requested re-employment or adjustment in another cooperative or government department. They also sought 50% dearness allowance to be added to their last drawn pay as per the VRS definition of 'salary'. The court analyzed the VRS and relevant legal provisions to determine the petitioners' entitlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioners' plea to quash the VRS, stating that they willingly accepted the scheme and cannot challenge its validity now. It also ruled that the petitioners are estopped from seeking re-employment or adjustment as per the VRS conditions. However, the court found merit in the petitioners' claim for 50% dearness allowance as per the VRS definition of 'salary' and issued a writ of mandamus to grant them this benefit.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the VRS, the petitioners' entitlement to re-employment or adjustment, and the interpretation of the definition of 'salary' in the VRS.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, having voluntarily accepted the VRS, are bound by its conditions and cannot challenge its validity. It also relied on legal precedents to interpret the definition of 'salary' in the VRS, concluding that the petitioners are entitled to 50% dearness allowance as per the VRS definition.
Final Decision: The court rejected the plea to quash the VRS and seeking re-employment or adjustment, but granted the petitioners the benefit of 50% dearness allowance as per the VRS definition of 'salary' through a writ of mandamus.
JUDGMENT :
Arun Monga, J.
1. In this bunch of 11 petitions, the erstwhile employees (petitioners) of the Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited have inter alia sought quashing of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS for short), whereby, they were paid compensation while dispensing with their services. A further direction has also been sought directing the respondents to take the petitioners back in service or adjust them in any other cooperative or any Government department. In case the petitioners do not succeed in aforesaid prayer, an alternate relief has been sought to the effect that 50% dearness allowance be added in the last drawn pay, while computing the compensation payable to them, as per definition of 'salary' defined in the VRS itself.
2. Having heard the rival contentions of the respective learned counsels and on perusal of the pleadings alongwith the relevant record filed therewith, I am of the view that as far as the prayer seeking quashing of VRS is concerned, the same cannot be accepted for the reasons stated in the succeeding paragraphs.
3. Primary argument to assail the VRS is that those who did not opt for the VRS were in the end better of as they were later on adjusted either in some other cooperative or in the Government department, as against the claim of the petitioners, who were induced into accepting the VRS on the premise that in case they do not opt for the same, they would have to face the prospects of retrenchment, in accordance with law. I do not find any force in the said argument as, other-than the bald assertion that those who did not opt for the VRS have been given better treatment, there is nothing on record to establish the same.
4. In the premise, there has been no hostile discrimination or arbitrariness or otherwise any violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India as contended on behalf of the petitioners. All the employees were given equal treatment inasmuch as the option to accept the VRS or to face the consequences of its non-acceptance.
5. A perusal of the VRS reflects that it was not mandatory in character. Petitioners could have therefore easily opted not to avail the benefits under the scheme. Having once willingly accepted the VRS and, thereafter, availing the monetary benefits arising therefrom, it is too late in the day now to turn around and challenge the same on the ground of same being arbitrary or unreasonable or otherwise being in contravention of Article 14, ibid.
6. Even otherwise, after the petitioners willingly exercised their options to avail the financial benefits as per the VRS, they are estopped in law from challenging the validity of the VRS. Resultantly, prayer to seek quashing of VRS is rejected and a consequence thereof, no mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to take the petitioners back in service or adjust them in any other department/cooperative.
7. Furthermore, there is a specific condition in the VRS that once an employee opts for the same, he shall not be eligible for re-employment and/or adjustment in any government job or in any cooperative sugarmill or any subsidiary. The relevant Clause 10 (ix) of the VRS is reproduced herein-below:-
"An employee who seeks voluntary retirement under this scheme shall not be eligible for preferential employment/re-employment/adjustment in any Government job, in any CSM or any of its subsidiaries. An employee who seeks voluntary retirement shall not have any right for seeking any quota/reservation in any Government job in any CSM or any of its subsidiaries."
8. A Perusal of the above leaves no manner of doubt that having once voluntarily opted the VRS, the petitioners are bound by the conditions of the same and their prayer for adjustment in any other cooperative sugar mills or government department is not tenable in law. Particularly, in view of their having voluntarily opted for VRS.
9. As regards the alternative relief sought by the petitioners, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant Clause 3 (v) of VRS as
