Murlidhar Datta and Others vs MECON Limited and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have approached this Court for directing the respondents to make payment of left over retirement benefit on account of Leave Salary and Leave Encashment (Earned Leave as well as half pay leave) arising out of pay revision for the period effective from 1st January, 1997 to December, 2006 with 18% interest. These petitioners had either retired or had taken voluntary retirement within the period from 1st January, 1997 upto December, 2000.

The stand of the respondents as brought on record through further affidavit filed on 10th May, 2012, is that these petitioners had otherwise separated from the employment of the Respondents-Company and were paid earned leave benefit in the pre-revised scale. On implementation of the pay revision, which entail serious financial implication, the liability of the Respondents-Company was brought to the notice of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. Thereafter, the respondents have taken a decision to make payment of arrears vide letter dated 17th October, 2008, on account of pay revision for the period from 1st January, 1997 to 31st December, 2000, after adjusting ad-hoc payments already made to the employees in this regard: (i) Payment of arrears in one installment to the regular eligible employees who are on the rolls of the Company as on date (ii) Payment of 20% of the arrear be paid as ad-hoc to the employees who have separated from the Company during the subject period.

Subsequent on 2nd February, 2009, after considering the financial position, it was decided to make payment of another 70% of the amount payable in the month of February, 2009. It was further decided that balance 10% shall be retained and released only after final adjustment is made. While making final payment, the ex-employees were required to furnish a declaration that with the payment of balance 10%, their claim of arrears payment stands settled fully and there shall be nothing balance payable to them. Photocopy of declarations are annexed as Annexure-I Series to the counter affidavit.

In such circumstances, the respondents have taken a stand that further payment of arrears on account of said pay revision in respect of leave encashment does not arise, as the same is only incidental and not at all statutory which can be claimed as a matter of right. In respect of further payment of arrear of leave salary paid to those employees, who have separated before 1st January, 2001, the respondents have invoked the principle which according to them were also applicable for the period from 1st of January, 1992 to 31st December, 1996, as per the clarification dated 21st December, 1995 (Annexure-D). In such circumstances, the respondents have taken a decision that arrear of leave encashment was not payable to those employees, who have separated before 1st January, 2001 as per the procedure adopted by the respondents.

However, from perusal of Annexure-D dated 21st December, 1995, it appears that it is a clarification on implementation of wage revision related to the period 1992-96. However, though the respondents have made statement in the supplementary counter affidavit that they are following the same clarification of 21st December, 1995 in respect of issue relating to payment of revised benefit in respect of leave encashment, for the employees who have separated from the Company before 1st January, 2001, but no such clarification, appears to have been issued in respect of the period in question in which the petitioners have separated from the organization i.e. 1st January, 1997 to December, 2006.

In such circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners relating to the benefits of the pay revision in respect of leave encashment amount, still appears to be open for the petitioner. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority i.e. respondent No. 2, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, MECON Ltd. Doranda, Ranchi so far as their claim of leave encashment amount in the revised scale is concerned, within a period of 3 weeks. On receipt of such representation, the respondent No. 2, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, MECON Ltd. Doranda, Ranchi shall consider the same in accordance with law as also as per any such policy decision of the Respondent-Company and any other Rules or Guidelines prevailing in the department within a period of 12 weeks thereafter by passing a reasoned and speaking order, which shall also be communicated to the petitioners. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions.