9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VRS) vide its O.M. Dated 05.10.1988 and the same was now revised to make it more efficacious having regard to both the interest of the employees and the need to enable the Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) to rationalise their surplus manpower. Under the scheme, the employees who would have opted for voluntary retirement were entitled to payment of compensation consisting of salary of 35 days for every completed year of service and 25 days for the balance of service left until superannuation. The management of the public-sector enterprises were, Therefore, required to introduce the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) with the approval of the Boards and the Administrative Ministries. 4. On 7.6.2000, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culated on the basis of 30 days in a month and not 26 days and consequently the method of calculation of ex-gartia in VRS shall be similar. On 22.11.2001, respondent no.3 issued a circular that pursuant to the decision communicated by the Department of Public Enterprises, it was decided to modify Clause 4 of the scheme so as to clarify that for computation of ex-gartia for the VRS, the month will be taken of 30 days and not of 26 days On the issue of this circular modifying the scheme so as to consider the month to be of 30 days instead of 26 days, some of the employees of respondent No.3 withdrew their offer under the VRS. 5. The offer of petitioners 2 to 8 seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme was accepted by respondent no.3 vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 22.11.2001 was neither approved by the Board of Directors of respondent no.3 nor was approved by the concerned Ministry. It is also the case of the petitioners that two other employees whose names were mentioned in paragraph 15 of the petition had also applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme dated 17.10.2001 and they were paid compensation on the basis of taking the month to be of 26 days and there could thus be no discrimination amongst employees who were similarly placed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record placed before this Court but I have not been able to make myself agreeable with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 22.11.2001 notifying to its employees that the calculation of compensation under the VRS would be on the basis of 30 days in a month and not 26 days as mentioned in the earlier notification. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that it was only on 14.12.2001, that the Department of Fertilizers had accorded its approval to the modified scheme dated 26.11.2001 and consequently before 14.12.2001, the respondent no.3 could not introduce the modified scheme dated 22.11.2001, so as to deprive the petitioners of compensation on the basis of 26 days in a month or compute the same on the basis of 30 days in a month as was introduced by the modified scheme. 8. By its letter dated 14.12.2001, all that had been done by the Min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, issued to petitioner no.1, the petitioners had been clearly informed that their offer of voluntary retirement had been accepted by the management on the basis of the revised scheme circulated vide the circular dated 22.11.2001. The petitioners having been informed that there offer had been accepted on the basis of circular dated 22.11.2001, and they having accepted compensation on the basis of such acceptance, it is too late a stage for the petitioners to contend that they were kept in dark about the said circular. Petitioners have taken benefit of the circular and having accepted compensation there under cannot now turn around and say that they were not informed about the compensation to be calculated on the basis of 30 days in a month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners and I, Therefore, do not find any discrimination between employees who were similarly placed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported as Nandini Nitin Patil Versus State of Maharashtra and others 2000 (6) SLR to contend that an employee whose offer had already been accepted could not be deprived of the benefits of the scheme. There cannot be a dispute about the proposition that once the offer of voluntary retirement had been accepted by the management the terms thereof cannot be altered to the disadvantage of the employee who had opted for voluntary retirement. In the present case, however, the offer of the petitioners had been accepted only after the introduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
