Delhi High Court
Thampy Mathews vs Industrial Investment Bank Of ... on 18 July, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
32$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8716/2009
THAMPY MATHEWS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Mathews & Mr. Shashi
Mathews, Advs.
Versus
INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Sood, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 18.07.2011
1. The counsel for the respondent informs that in pursuance of the orders
dated 19th May, 2011 and 31st May, 2011, a sum of `26,67,648/- has been
paid to the petitioner.
2. The counsel for the petitioner also does not controvert the aforesaid.
He however contends that the respondent while computing the amount
aforesaid, has paid interest on the VRS amount with effect from 4th June,
2010 only and not with effect from 1st February, 2009. It is contended that
if interest were to be paid from 1st February, 2009, a further sum of
`1,40,076/- is payable by the respondent to the petitioner.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent contends that the VRS
amount was not payable on 1st February, 2009 as contended by the
petitioner but became payable only on 4th June, 2010 and with effect from
which the interest had admittedly been paid. Reference in this regard is
made to Clause 17(9) of the IIBI Staff Regulations as per which, in case any
disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against an employee before he
ceases to be in service of the respondent, the employee is deemed to be in
service for the purpose of continuance and conclusion of such proceedings.
It is contended that since the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner
concluded only on 3rd June, 2010, the VRS amount became payable then
only and interest on VRS amount has been computed from 4th June, 2010
itself. It is stated that thus notwithstanding the petitioner having been
relieved under VR Scheme on 31st December, 2008, he became entitled to
the VRS amount only on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings on 3rd
June, 2010.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has also contended that there was a
direction to the respondent to pay interest with effect from 1 st February,
2009. I do not agree. The orders aforesaid only noted the contentions of the
parties.
5. I find merit in the contention of the respondent. Moreover, it cannot
be lost sight of that the parties were referred to mediation and the petitioner
had shown anxiety to settle the matter and payment aforesaid came to be
released to the petitioner in pursuance of the orders recording willingness of
the petitioner to accept in full and final settlement the amount offered by the
respondent. The petitioner cannot now be heard to raise a dispute.
6. The counsel for the petitioner also states that the release letter has not
been issued to the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent states that the
petitioner was released vide letter dated 7th February, 2009. Recording the
statement of the respondent through counsel that the said letter may be
treated as a release letter, the said grievance also does not survive.
7. The amount as aforesaid having been paid, no further orders are
needed in the writ petition, the same is disposed of with no order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
JULY 18, 2011
'gsr'
