9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndertaking of Government of India has challenged common judgment delivered on 04.08.2010 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in Transfer Application Nos. 2001/2009, 2002/2009, 2004/2009 to 2035 of 2009. By said judgment, the Central Administrative Tribunal, has extended actual financial benefits to 30 applicants who were placed by it in Category No. II. 10 applicants in remaining 9 matters were placed by it in first category and CAT found that they cannot be denied the benefit of notional fixation and therefore, recomputation of their severance package (retiral benefits) was necessary. 2. Insofar as Petitioner's challenges to CAT verdict in 29 Transfer Applications before it falling in Category II are concerned, Writ Petition No. 3242 of 2011 with connected writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 20.09.2011 in motion hearing. The petitioners have disclosed that they have accepted that order and, according to them, it has become final. Insofar as Category I matters are concerned, the relevant details are as under : Sr. No. Name of Employee. T.A. Nos. Date of VRS/Retirement. 1 N. Mathur & P. Nagendra Kumar 2002/2009 31.03.2003 2 I.L.R. Rao 2021/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon the review of situation in the year 200708 and was to be from internal sources of the petitioner. Shri Banerji contends that in this situation, the approval regarding waiver of interest etc. and implementation of wage revision from 01.04.2006 was further confirmed by Respondent No. 2 on 17.08.2006. The petitioners, however, had made some payments by way of interim relief and on 25.08.2006, the petitioners informed its employees that though wage revision was due from 01.01.1997, it would be effected from 01.04.2003 and would be actually implemented from 01.04.2006. 5. In this situation, the employees like Respondent No. 1 who had opted for voluntary retirement with effect from 30.08.2000 i.e. prior to 01.04.2003 were not entitled to any benefit of wage revision. Hence, those employees did not make any claim till 23.07.2007. In 2007 they sent a letter to Chairmancum Managing Director of the petitioners for consideration of their entitlement to wage revision. Thereafter they approached High Court in Writ Petitions in 2008 and after amendment to Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, those writ petitions were transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal. 6. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r terminal benefits accrued on account of wage revision was to be paid subject to availability of funds. Thus, as terms and conditions of wage revision did not permit arrears and there were no funds, Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any benefit. The office order dated 04.02.2003 particularly its clause 2 is read out to substantiate the same. 8. In order to buttress his contention that cut off date 01.04.2003 is not arbitrary, Shri Banerji, has relied upon the judgment in the case of Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. vs. Khageswar Sundaray & Ors., reported at (2011) 8 SCC 269, Sudhir Kumar Consul vs. Allahabad Bank, reported at (2011) 3 SCC 486, National Council for Teacher Education & Ors. vs. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan & Ors., reported at (2011) 3 SCC 238, State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., reported at (2005) 6 SCC 754, State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Boota Singh & Anr., reported at (2000) 3 SCC 753. To demonstrate absence of any right in Respondent No. 1 due to its financial position and status of employees who have severed their relationship, support is being taken from the judgment in the case of A.K. Bindal & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el appearing for the employees has invited attention to consideration of this aspect by CAT in para 9. He argues that there is no bar to extend notional benefits to those who had voluntarily retired prior to 31.03.2003. All respective counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of writ petitions. 12. In his brief reply, Shri Banerji, Additional Solicitor General of India, has contended that Respondent No. 1 and his colleagues were all the while aware of cut off date as 01.04.2003. It was also informed to them on 03.11.2006 while supplying information under Right To Information Act. 13. The terms and conditions of revised modified VRS in year 2002 are not in dispute. As per clause 5(iv) it has been stated that arrears of wages due to revision will not be included in computing the eligible amount. This condition continues as it is in the scheme as notified on 23.01.2003. In this background, the Government of India has granted approval to financial restructuring and wage board proposal on 08.08.2006. The communication dated 17.08.2006 reveals that Government had then considered the recommendations of Board for Restructuring of Public Sector Establishments -BRPSE, dated 28.12.2005. On 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contains similar stipulation. The Circulars dated 23.01.2003 and 21.05.2002 containing condition that arrears of wages due to revision would not be calculated in computing the eligible amount are thus issued subsequently and form part of revised modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Two applicants in TA No. 2002 of 2009 have accepted VRS on 31.03.2003. The applicant in TA No. 2034 of 2009 has also severed his relationship similarly on 31.03.2003. The modified VRS as per communication dated 21.05.2002 was open from 21.05.2002 till 20.06.2002. As per Scheme dated 23.01.2003, written request for VRS was to be submitted not later than 22.02.2003. The petitioners have stated that old VRS ceased to exist after 30.06.2002. It is, therefore, obvious that remaining seven applicants in seven transfer applications are not subject to this revised modified VRS scheme. 15. The office order dated 04.02.2003 shows that it gives certain clarification regarding implementation of VRS. The issue No. 2 in this communication is relevant. The question posed was - Whether the payments made as exgratia (with 50% increase), Gratuity, Leave Encashment and pay arrears are recalculated in case of pay revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... promise held out, direction by Central Administrative Tribunal in their favour is not unjustified." Thus, we had found that the CAT had properly applied its mind to the controversy and held those applicants entitled to similar benefit in consonance with clause 15 of the office order dated 25.08.2006. We have also found that the acceptance of severance by employees could not have been used to deny them the benefits of wage revision. There were 29 employees in said category II and first out of them accepted VRS on 30.06.2003 (TA 2193/2009) while last of them i.e. employee in TA 2009/2009 took it on 31.01.2007. Dates on which respective respondent 1 in present writ petitions opted for VRS are already noted by us above. Hence, our above findings hold good even in relation to present matters before us. This treatment to its employees included in category II by CAT is acquiesced by the Petitioners and hence, very same logic is sufficient reject their present challenge. 17. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court in the case of S.N. Basavarajappa vs. Management of Vignyan Industries, reported at 2010 (5) SLR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cations in relation thereto. The observations in para 22 also show similar application of mind. Thus, it is terms and conditions of concluded contract of VRS which thereafter are held determinative & decisive. 22. Unreported judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha & Ors. vs. MECL & Ors.) dated 05.01.2009 in Writ Petition No. 2256 of 1998 shows a demand for wage revision in accordance with payscales recommended by 5th Pay Commission for government servants by employees of the petitioner. We have perused relevant paras 6, 11 and 13 to which our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we find the discussion therein not relevant for deciding the present controversy. 23. In ITI Ltd. vs. ITI Ex/VR Employees/Officers Welfare Association and Ors., (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has noted specific clause in VRS Circular which prohibited reopening of calculations and, therefore, found High Court not justified in awarding higher amounts due to subsequent wage revision. It is, therefore, obvious that primacy has been given to terms and conditions of VRS. 24. The other judgments relied upon by the learned Additional Solicitor G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
