AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants u/s 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 aggrieved of the order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 3981/2007 whereby, the learned single Judge by a common order passed in number of writ petitions passed the following direction:--
From perusal of record, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed w.e.f. 13.08.1989, he was discontinued w.e.f. 03.06.1991. In compliance of the order passed by the Court his services were restored w.e.f. 23.3.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the petition for classification whereby application whereby application filed by the petitioner was dismissed against which an appeal was filed which was numbered as 265/2011 and vide order dated 09.04.2002 the Industrial Court allowed the appeal with a direction that petitioner is entitled for the scheme. The scheme of VRS is Annexure-R/1 which came in force on 24.12.2001. In compliance of that an appropriate application was filed by the petitioner on 28.06.2002. Thereafter the VRS Annexure-R/1 dated 24.12.2001 was amended w.e.f. 19.10.2002 whereby it was directed that in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 19.10.2002 it was decided that the revival scheme is based on certain assumption and that the cost of scheme does not provide for such additional Financial Commitment and that various agencies like the Central Government/State Government/Financial Institutions/EPF Organizations/ESI Organizations/Electricity Boards etc. have come forward for sacrifices as per the scheme, therefore, in the interest of organization, employees who have filed cases in any of the Court be given the benefit of MVRS only if they withdraw the case or any claim for back wages etc. By that time the amendment was made in the original scheme, the application filed by the petitioner was pending. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the amendment made in the scheme Annexure R/1 was intimated to the petitioner. In the application which was filed by the petitioner is on a printed pro forma and there is no clause in which the petitioner was required to withdraw the case which is pending. In the facts and circumstances of the case only because some case was pending at the time when the application was filed by the petitioner, it cannot be said that petitioner is not entitled for MVRS. In view of this, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order Annexure P/1 is quashed. Respondents are directed to give the benefit tot he petitioner under the MVRS as no case filed by the petitioner is pending in any of the Court. It is made clear that amount which has already been paid by the respondents to the petitioner shall be adjust towards the benefits MVRS.
When the matter came up before us, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent has not filed the affidavit to submit that he will not claim back-wages and that the back wages which has already been received by him, may be deducted from the amount payable to them under the VRS, the affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent.
It will be appropriate to take note of the order passed in 21.01.2013 which reads as under:--
Shri. G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior Advocate with Shri. D.M. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Miss. Meena Saxena, learned Advocate for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent shall file an appropriate affidavit stating therein that the respondent shall not claim any back wages and the back wages which had already been received by him may be deducted from the amount payable to them under the VRS.
Let the affidavit as aforesaid be filed within a week.
Shri. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in case, such an affidavit is filed, the respondent''s VRS shall be accepted.
List after a week.
Once the affidavit was filed then in view of the statement made by Shri. DM Sharma, Advocate for the appellants, the respondent''s VRS was to be accepted however, the appellants were not willing to do so despite filing of affidavit.
In these circumstances, we find that the appellants cannot hide and seek, they cannot treat different persons differently.
Once the affidavit has been filed by the respondent in terms of the requirement of VRS as observed by the learned single Judge in the connected matters as quoted above, we are of the opinion that the appellants are bound to allow VRS and grant the compensation as is being granted to similarly placed people.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. The requisite amount payable to the respondent shall be released by the appellants within two months from the date of passing of this order.
C.c. as per rules.