Back
2014 Supreme(All) 783
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : A.P. SAHI AND RAJAN ROY, JJ.
BHARAT PUMPS AND COMPRESSORS LIMITED ......Petitioner
Versus
ANAND KUMAR AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76489 of 2011, decided on 25th April, 2014)
Counsel :
P.K. Sinha and Naveen Sinha for the Petitioner; Sandeep Singh, Jitendra Kumar and S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:Retirement—Voluntary retirement scheme—Ex gratia payment—Entitlement of respondents to arrears of salary consequent to the revision of pay-scales w.e.f. 1.1.1997—Company decided to pay 50% extra ex-gratia amount to optees—Respondents undisputedly were not on the rolls of company on the date of issuance of circular, i.e. 20.7.2008, none of them was covered by the first part of paragraph-3 of the said circular—Word ‘retirement’ generally connotes cessation of one’s employment or career especially upon reaching a certain age—Retirement may be voluntary or involuntary—Word ‘retirement’ used in the context of instant case is a synonym for the word ‘superannuation’—Once respondents opted to retire voluntarily in terms of the scheme of voluntary retirement, which only promised ex-gratia payment including 50% enhancement in respect thereof subject to recalculation of the same in the event of implementation of Pay Revision 1997, no further benefits such as arrears of salary could be claimed by them unless they were entitled under any statutory provision or a policy of company itself—Therefore, respondents with the exception of respondent No. 3 held not entitled to arrears of salary based on Pay Revision 1997—Held that respondents are only entitled to recalculation of their ex gratia amount in terms of circular dated 31.1.2001 and 22.3.2002. [Paras 24 to 47]
Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri P.K. Sinha, advocate for the petitioner and Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
2. The respondents were employed in the petitioner company, i.e. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Limited, which is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India. On 25.6.1999, the Government of India took a decision to revise the pay-scale of Board level and below Board level posts including non-unionised Supervisors in Public Sector Undertakings.
3. As proceedings relating to the petitioner company were pending before the B.I.F.R., i.e. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, since 1995, as such, the aforesaid decision of the Government of India was not enforced in respect of the employees of the company.
4. In the mean time, on 13.12.2001, a scheme for voluntary retirement was floated by the company, which was extended, from time to time, to reduce excess man-power in the company.
5. Under the Scheme ex gratia payment, calculated on the basis of Pay Revision 1992 was payable to the optees as the Pay Revision 1997 had not been implemented in the company.
6. As the Pay Revision 1997 was not implemented in the company, therefore, under the aforesaid voluntary retirement scheme, the company decided to pay 50% extra ex gratia amount to the optees.
7. On 22.3.2002, the company clarified by means of a circular that the ex gratia payment will be recalculated on the basis of the revised scale of pay in the event of implementation of Pay Revision 1997 and the 50% enhanced ex gratia amount paid would be adjusted upon recalculation of the ex gratia payment referred above.
8. Due to certain turn of events, involving writing off of planned and non-planned loans, interest etc. as well as budgetary and financial support provided to the company, the B.I.F.R. in its proceedings held on 6.2.2007 held that the company was no longer a sick industrial company.
9. In view of the relaxation granted by the Government of India, the company started earning profits from the year 2006 and onwards. Consequently, it recommended to the Government of India for approving the implementation of Pay Revision 1997 in respect of its employees, accordingly, the same was approved on 19.7.2008.
10. Though, the pay-scales were to be revised w.e.f. 1.1.1997, the actual payment of revised salaries to the employees, in such pay-scales, was to be made w.e.f. 1.4.2008. The payment of arrears was to be considered separately. No budgetary support was to be given by the Government to meet the expenditure towards salary, revision, payment of arrears etc.
11. Consequent to the aforesaid decision, the company issued a circular on 20.7.2008 regarding implementation of the Salary Revision 1997 mentioning the terms and conditions thereof.
12. The respondent No. 3, Sri Shri Kant Shukla retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. This fact is admitted by the petitioner in paragraph-30 of the writ petition. The other respondents opted for voluntary retirement under the aforesaid scheme much prior to the issuance of the circulars of 19.7.2008 and 20.7.2008. They were not on the rolls of the company as on 20.7.2008.
13. As the respondents believed that they were also entitled to arrears of salary consequent to the aforesaid revision of pay-scales w.e.f. 1.1.1997, they filed an original application bearing O.A. No. 1619 of 2010 seeking following reliefs:
“(a) To pass an order directing the respondents to pay entire amount accrued on revision of pay scale with effect from 1.1.1997, as stated in the Office Order dated 20.7.2008 till the date of superannuation/ V.R.S. alongwith interest @ 18% per annum expeditiously within a stipulated time, which is to be framed by the Hon’ble Tribunal.
(b) To issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper on the fact and circumstances of the case.
(c) To award cost of this application t
