9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has challenged common judgment delivered on 04.08.2010 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in Transfer Application Nos. 2001/2009, 2002/2009, 2004/2009 to 2035 of 2009. By said judgment, the Central Administrative Tribunal, has extended actual financial benefits to 30 applicants who were placed by it in Category No. II. 10 applicants in remaining 9 matters were placed by it in first category and CAT found that they cannot be denied the benefit of notional fixation and therefore, recomputation of their severance package (retiral benefits) was necessary. 2. Insofar as Petitioner's challenges to CAT verdict in 29 Transfer Applications before it falling in Category II are concerned, Writ Petition No. 3242 of 2011 with connected writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 20.09.2011 in motion hearing. The petitioners have disclosed that they have accepted that order and, according to them, it has become final. Insofar as Category I matters are concerned, the relevant details are as under : Sr. No. Name of Employee. T.A. Nos. Date of VRS/Retirement. 1 N. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to ₹ 16.20 Crores in 200607. Hence, demand for wage revision again gathered momentum. The Government of India vide its letter dated 08.08.2006 promised certain assistance by way of financial restructuring. Respondent No. 2 in this situation specifically informed the petitioner that wage revision will be effected from 01.04.2003 only and would be implemented from 01.04.2006. The arrears for the year 200506 on account of wage revision were directed to be paid in the year 200607 subject to achieving gross profit of ₹ 15.64 Crores in 200506. The payment of arrears for the period from 200304 and 200405 was to depend upon the review of situation in the year 200708 and was to be from internal sources of the petitioner. Shri Banerji contends that in this situation, the approval regarding waiver of interest etc. and implementation of wage revision from 01.04.2006 was further confirmed by Respondent No. 2 on 17.08.2006. The petitioners, however, had made some payments by way of interim relief and on 25.08.2006, the petitioners informed its employees that though wage revision was due from 01.01.1997, it would be effected from 01.04.2003 and would be actually implemented from 01. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een invited to various clauses contained in Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated on 21.05.2002 to show that arrears of wages due to revision are not to be included in computing the eligible amount thereunder. Same clauses appearing in VRS dated 23.01.2003 are also pressed into service. Circulars issued from time to time i.e. from 27.09.1997 onwards in this respect are also read out to demonstrate that employees availing VRS were informed that they would get their arrears consequent upon wage revision then under consideration as per the terms and conditions decided for wage revision. The payment of arrears towards exgratia and other terminal benefits accrued on account of wage revision was to be paid subject to availability of funds. Thus, as terms and conditions of wage revision did not permit arrears and there were no funds, Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any benefit. The office order dated 04.02.2003 particularly its clause 2 is read out to substantiate the same. 8. In order to buttress his contention that cut off date 01.04.2003 is not arbitrary, Shri Banerji, has relied upon the judgment in the case of Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. vs. Khageswar Sundaray ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clients has adopted arguments of Shri Meghe, learned counsel and contended that juniors of respective Respective No. 1, who opted for VRS after 01.04.2003 have been substantially benefited. Their wages even for the period when they were in service along with respective Respondent No. 1 have been hiked and hence, it resulted into a position in which senior received lesser salary than his junior. He, therefore, contends that notional increments needed to be released in favour of respective Respondent No. 1 till his date of retirement and then their Voluntary Retirement Scheme amount needed to be increased proportionately. 11. Shri Dhondarkar, learned counsel appearing for the employees has invited attention to consideration of this aspect by CAT in para 9. He argues that there is no bar to extend notional benefits to those who had voluntarily retired prior to 31.03.2003. All respective counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of writ petitions. 12. In his brief reply, Shri Banerji, Additional Solicitor General of India, has contended that Respondent No. 1 and his colleagues were all the while aware of cut off date as 01.04.2003. It was also informed to them on 03.11.2006 while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds, the notional benefits have been released. Recipients are thus getting upgradation by 6 to 7 stages for service after 1.1.1997 till 2003. 14. The Circular dated 27.09.1999 issued by the petitioner shows that those availing VRS were communicated that they would get their arrears consequent upon wage revision then under consideration of the management in one lot, as per the terms and conditions decided for wage revision. The communication also promises that arrears towards the exgratia and other terminal benefits accrued on account of wage revision would also be paid to such employees subject to availability of fund. The Circular dated 3/4th March 2000 also contains similar stipulation. The Circulars dated 23.01.2003 and 21.05.2002 containing condition that arrears of wages due to revision would not be calculated in computing the eligible amount are thus issued subsequently and form part of revised modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Two applicants in TA No. 2002 of 2009 have accepted VRS on 31.03.2003. The applicant in TA No. 2034 of 2009 has also severed his relationship similarly on 31.03.2003. The modified VRS as per communication dated 21.05.2002 was open from 21.05.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he wages. It is, therefore, apparent that the application of mind by the Central Administrative Tribunal does not show any error in this respect. We also find that circular by which V.R.S. was offered itself promised to employees proceeding on V.R.S., the arrears becoming payable consequent upon wage revision, then under consideration. The promise continues even in later circular dated 3/4.03.2000. These employees/ applicants were never informed that their accepting said offer and parting accordingly can be used to deny them those arrears. In subsequent wage revision, it is this separation only which has been used to deny them the wage revision. In the backdrop of this promise held out, direction by Central Administrative Tribunal in their favour is not unjustified. Thus, we had found that the CAT had properly applied its mind to the controversy and held those applicants entitled to similar benefit in consonance with clause 15 of the office order dated 25.08.2006. We have also found that the acceptance of severance by employees could not have been used to deny them the benefits of wage revision. There were 29 employees in said category II and first out of them accepte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at scheme would have been totally frustrated. Same view by the Hon'ble Apex Court is seen in the case of Vice-Chairman MD, A.P. SIDC Ltd. vs. R. Varaprasad, reported at 2003 (11) SCC 572. 21. In the case of Officers Supervisors of I.D.P.L. vs. Chairman M.D., I.D.P.L., (supra), same view is reiterated. In HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society vs. Heavy Engg. Corporation Ltd., (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 13 has held that after an offer for voluntary retirement is accepted, a concluded contract in terms of scheme comes into being. It is a package which can be taken or rejected as a whole and both employer and employee evaluate their respective financial standing and implications in relation thereto. The observations in para 22 also show similar application of mind. Thus, it is terms and conditions of concluded contract of VRS which thereafter are held determinative decisive. 22. Unreported judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha Ors. vs. MECL Ors.) dated 05.01.2009 in Writ Petition No. 2256 of 1998 shows a demand for wage revision in accordance with payscales recommended by 5th Pay Commission for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
