Delhi High Court
Vijay Kumar Sethi And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi), Ministry Of ... on 19 August, 2002
Author: A D Singh
Bench: A D Singh, M Mudgal
JUDGMENT
Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated March
14, 2002 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 3917/2000. The facts leading to the filing of
the appeal are as under:-
2. The appellants, who were the employee of M/s. Hindustan Vegetable Oil
Corporation Ltd. and had secured voluntary retirement, approached this Court by filing
a writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-
".....it is respectfully prayed that the respondent HVOC be directed by
a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction to
pay to the petitioners the amounts due to them consequent on the revision of pay
and its incidental and consequential benefits as detailed in para 10 of the writ
petition along with interest."
3. Similar reliefs, as are being claimed in the instant appeal, were claimed by an
employee of the company in Civil Writ Petition No. 275/2001. That writ petition was
rejected by the learned Single Judge on February 26, 2002 against which Letters Patent
Appeal No. 345/2002 was filed by the aggrieved employee. That Letters Patent
Appeal came to be rejected by us on April 23, 2002. While rejecting the appeal we
noticed the arguments advanced before us and observed as follows:
"We have heard the appellant who appears in person before us. The
appellant submits that on 19th August, 1998, the Government of India issued a
notification providing for revision of pay scales of employees of Public Sector
Enterprises w.e.f. 1st January 1997. It is the contention of the appellant that the
appellant and other employees of the 2nd respondent were entitled to revision of
scales in accordance with the aforesaid notification of the Government of India.
The appellant canvasses that without giving effect to the notification of the
Government of India, the application of VSS to the employee of the 2nd
respondent was liable to be struck down being arbitrary and unreasonable. We
find from a perusal of the writ petition that this contention was not raised nor
any prayer was made to that effect. In any event, we are of the opinion that the
scheme is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The question whether the 2nd
respondent ought to have adopted the aforesaid notification of the Government
of India depended upon the financial capacity of the 2nd respondent.
Respondent No. 2 was declared to be a sick company and did not have the
financial resources to give higher pay scale to its employees in accordance with
the notification of the Government of India. In this regard, a reference to
Clause (iv) of the VSS will be useful. This stipulates as under:-
"(i) to (iii) xx xx xx
(iv) Arrears of salary/wage revision, shall, however, become payable
only when company generates adequate surplus through
improved productivity and profitability to the satisfaction of
Administrative Ministry."
Thus the employees of the 2nd respondent were to be given benefits of
revision of salaries only if the company generated adequate surplus through
improved productivity and profitability to the satisfaction of the Administrative
Ministry. It is not claimed in the writ petition that the company had generated
adequate surplus through improved productivity and profitability."
4. As noted above, we declined to grant relief to the appellant in L.P.A. No.
3445/2002 inter alia on the ground that M/s. Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation Ltd.
was declared as a sick company and did not have the financial resources to pay higher
pay scales to its employees in accordance with the notification. As is clear from
above, we also referred to Clause (iv) of the Voluntary Separation Scheme. According
to this clause, arrears of salary/wage revision were payable only when the company
generated adequate surplus through improved productivity and profitability to the
satisfaction of the Administrative Ministry. Since it is not claimed that the company
had generated adequate surplus through improved productivity and profitability, the
appellants could not be given benefit of the revision of the salary.
5. In the circumstances, therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal.
6. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
