G.S. Phalahari vs Chairman-Cum-Md Cement Corpn. India Ltd.

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—The following reliefs are claimed in the writ petition:

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction by directing the respondent to grant the petitioner ex-gratia payment of difference of pay on revision of I.D.A. pay scales from 1.1.1992 for the number of months of service left before his respective date of retirement and gratuity with continuing of service rendered in various organisation of Ministry of Industry, dept. of Public enterprises.

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order direction and may quash the O.M. No. PD/PP/13 (62) 94/949 dated 17.4.1996 and letter dated 18.2.1997, written by respondent, wherein the claim of the petitioner was rejected.

(iii) Award costs of the writ petition.

The fact of the matter is that the petitioner, in fact, took voluntary retirement under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 16.5.1996.

The law is that once a person takes voluntary retirement, thereafter he has no right to seek any monetary entitlements with respect to past services from his employer. This is a ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Bindal and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . Para 34 of the judgment in the case of A.K. Bindal (supra) reads as under:-

This shows that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex-gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in business world it is known as ''Golden Handshake''. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a compete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights, with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. If the employee is still permitted to raise a grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale from a retrospective date, even after he has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount paid to him, the whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be totally frustrated.

(underlining added)

Therefore, the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are hit by the ratio in the case of A.K. Bindal (Supra).

Also, the writ petition is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches because with respect to a claim which would have arisen on the petitioner seeking and getting voluntary retirement in May 1996, the same cannot be claimed after a period of 4 years in May 2000, inasmuch as, ordinarily a limitation period of 3 years is applied by the Court to consider the issue of delay and laches. No doubt, Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to a writ petition, however, the same provides a good guide for applying the doctrine of delay and laches. Merely because the petitioner kept on making repeated representations, the same will not extend the period of time for approaching the Court unless there was an assurance by the employer to favourably consider the case of the petitioner, and which is not so in the present case. In view of the above, writ petition is dismissed, both on the ground of reliefs claimed by the petitioner being barred in view of the ratio of the judgment in A.K. Bindal (Supra), and also by applying the doctrine of delay and laches.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.