Md. Sawood Ansari vs Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited and Others

J.C.S. Rawat, J.—The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking the relief that Differential Retirements and Voluntary

Retirement Scheme Benefits consequent upon issuance of H.E.C.''s Circular No. 5/97 dated 9.10.1997 whereby the revised pay scales and other

benefits were given to the executives of H.E.C. Limited w.e.f. 1.1.1992.

The petitioner was in the service of the respondents as Junior Executive and a scheme for seeking voluntary retirement was formulated by the

respondents and pursuant to this, the petitioner took the voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.1.1992 and he received all the retirement benefits on the

basis of the said scheme. Now he is claiming that he is entitled to the revised benefit under the 1997 Circular w.e.f. the date it has been enforced.

The State has filed the counter affidavit alleging therein that the circular issued in the year 1997 only covers the category of the persons who are

entitled to get the benefit of revised scale of pay and the same are employees who were on the rolls of the corporation as on 1.1.1992, but the

petitioner ceased to be the employee of the corporation on account of voluntary retirement under the Scheme. He further pointed out that Clause

3.3 of the said Circular deals with those categories of employees who have specifically excluded from being given the benefits of revised scale of

pay. He further alleged in the counter affidavit that this clause does not include those categories of persons'' who had sought voluntary retirement

and have been released from the service of the corporation after 1.1.1992.

I have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and perused the record. It is true that Clause 3.2 and Clause 3.3. deal only those

categories of persons who are entitled to get benefits of the scheme and it is specifically mentioned in the scheme that those employees who were

on the rolls of the corporation as on 1.1.1992, but subsequently ceased in the services of the Corporation on account death or superannuation.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no difference between the superannuation on attending the age of superannuation and

the voluntary retirement under the Scheme. The benefit which has already been given to the employees who superannuated from the service on

attaining the age of superannuation would also be admissible to the employee who had sought voluntary retirement. The learned Counsel for the

respondents refuted the contention. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and Anr. v. Heavy

Engineering corporation Ltd. and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 5367 of 2001, has held:

We have noticed that admittedly thousands of employees had opted for voluntary retirement during the period in question. They indisputably form

a distinct and different class. Having given our anxious consideration thereto, we are of the opinion that neither they are discharged employees nor

are superannuated employees. The expression ""superannuation"" connotes a distinct meaning. It ordinarily means unless otherwise provided for in

the statute, that not only he reaches the age of superannuation prescribed therefor, but also becomes entitled to the retiral benefits thereof including

pension. ""Voluntary retirement"" could have fallen within the aforementioned expression, provided it was so stated expressly in the scheme.

From perusal of the above extracted view of the Apex Court, the petitioner who had sought voluntary retirement under the Scheme they form a

distinct and different class because they have obtained the special benefits accrued under the Scheme. I do not find any force in the contention of

the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner fuhrer contended that the petitioner has retired on 31.1.1992 and there is no indication about those

employees who sought voluntary retirement after 1.1.1992. The learned Counsel for the respondents refuted the contention and the language used

in Clause 2.3. Clause 2.3 is very clear that the said benefit cannot be granted to those persons who had obtained the voluntary retirement finder the

above scheme and had ceased to work after 31.1.1992. The perusal of the both the clauses clearly reveals that the scheme has excluded all the

persons who had sought the voluntary retirement under the special scheme. The case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in

HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees'' case (supra) and I do not find any case of the petitioner and the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed

accordingly. No orders as to cost.