AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first
respondent in circular No. PER/RR/531/2000/3007 DATED 28.08.2000 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent
to pay the arrears as well as the other retirement benefits as per the VRS Scheme applicable to the petitioners.
There was V.R.S. Scheme framed by the company on various dates, the last of which on 18.11.1993 and thereafter on 28.8.2000. The
petitioners No. 14 to 16 have filed their application for V.R.S. prior to 28.8.2000. All other petitioners have filed their application only after
28.8.2000. As per the V.R.S Scheme dated 18.11.1993, persons opting for V.R.S. were given number of benefits as specified in the Scheme.
Some of the benefits were taken away by circular dated 28.8.2000. The question here is as to whether the persons who opted to go on V.R.S.
after 28.8.2000 are also entitled to get the same benefits under the V.R.S. scheme framed on 18.11.1993.
Mr. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since it is a V.R.S. scheme, in order to attract persons go out of
employment certain benefits were conferred. Those benefits were not conferred retrospectively. According to the learned counsel, the circular
dated 18.8.2000 amounts to retrospective operation of the rules.
The learned counsel for the respondents stated except Petitioners No. 14 to 16, all others filed their application subsequent to 28.8.2000.
Therefore they are not entitled to get the benefits as found in the circular dated 28.8.2000. They are not eligible to get the benefit under the earlier
circular. Further, he contended none of the provisions are retrospective in operation. If any person is not inclined to accept the scheme or benefits
conferred by the circular, they are not bound to go on V.R.S. They can be continued in service. According to him, there is no retrospective
operation of any of the rules.
According to the scheme dated 18.11.1993, as found in the typed set attached to the writ petition, the employees going on V.R.S. were given
number of benefits viz., Travelling allowance and Transportation expenses, even without the production of any vouchers and also they were given
half day earned leave and other benefits. All these benefits available to those persons who availed this scheme as long as it was in operation.
Admittedly, on 28.8.2000 another circular has been issued. According to that circular, some of the benefits conferred by the earlier circular were
withdrawn. One such benefit is encashing of additional leave prior 1.10.1989. This according to the counsel for the petitioner amounts to
retrospective operation of the circular. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable for the reason that the circular
does not act retrospectively. It applies only prospective and this will apply to those person or all persons to go on V.R.S. after 28.8.2000.
Admittedly, Petitioners 1 to 13, 15 and 17 to 20 applied for V.R.S. Scheme after 28.8.2000. Therefore, they are eligible to get only those benefits
provided under the Circular dated 28.8.2000. They cannot claim the benefits conferred earlier to other persons who went on V.R.S. and got
benefits under 18.11.1993 circular. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there cannot be any discriminatory treatment to go
on V.R.S. earlier and on subsequent dates. When there is a specific circular conferring benefit and that benefit is taken away by the subsequent
circular, there cannot be said to be any violation of principles of equality. It is with open eyes the employees take the V.R.S. scheme. No
employee was compelled to go on V.R.S. Therefore, the question of discriminatory treatment does not arise. Inasmuch the circular dated
28.8.2000 is not retrospective in nature, the prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted. Except with respect to respondents 14 and 16, since
they filed application to go on V.R.S. before 28.8.2000, they are eligible to get all benefits as per the scheme under circular dated 18.11.1993.
With respect to others, the writ petition is dismissed.
The learned counsel Mr. Raghavachari brought to the notice of this Court that even in the counter in Para 14, it has been stated that ""none of the
working employees or employees separated by way of superannuation or by way of V.R.S. or due to death or otherwise, have been paid such
alleged benefits so far and as such, the claims of the petitioners are premature and not tenable at this stage."" They were promised of certain benefits
and hence those persons who opted for V.R.S. are entitled to get those benefits and such benefits shall be given to those persons within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.