Sh. J.P.Pandey & Ors. vs M/S Hindustan Prefab Ltd. & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1798 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C) No. 2564/2013
%                                                           22nd April, 2013

SH. J.P.PANDEY & ORS.                                          ......Petitioners
                    Through:             Mr. R.K.Kaushik, Advocate.


                            VERSUS

M/S HINDUSTAN PREFAB LTD. & ORS.                   ...... Respondents
                  Through:  Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC for R-2 & 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

    To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             This writ petition is filed by six petitioners who have retired from the

respondent no.1/Hindustan Prefab Ltd. Though it is not clear who superannuated

naturally, and who had taken voluntary retirement, however, it is not disputed that

all the petitioners have retired from respondent no.1 in 2008.

2.             The prayer in the writ petition is for grant to the petitioners of pay

revision benefits as per notification of the Ministry of Finance dated 29.8.2008 and

the Office Memorandum dated 14.10.2008 issued by the Ministry of Heavy

Industries and Public Enterprises. Reliance is finally placed upon the circular of




WPC2564/2013                                                                 Page 1 of 4
 the respondent no.1 itself dated 14.10.2009 for claiming the reliefs as prayed for in

the writ petition.

3.           In my opinion, the writ petition is misconceived and liable to be

dismissed for the following reasons:-

(i)          Firstly, the notification relied upon of the Ministry of Heavy

Industries and Public Enterprises dated 14.10.2008 by its para-3 makes it clear that

the Pay Commission Report so far as loss making Central Public Sector

Enterprises (CPSEs) are concerned would not automatically apply, and any of such

CPSEs will be entitled to take its own decision depending upon its financial

position. The respondent no.1, pursuant to this direction of the Ministry of Heavy

Industries and Public Enterprises has taken its decision in terms of the circular

dated 14.10.2009 whereby the payment of the revised pay-scales will be effective

only from 1.4.2009. Petitioners therefore not being employees of respondent no.1

as on 1.4.2009, the circular of the respondent no.1 dated 14.10.2009 cannot apply

to the petitioners, and the petitioners hence cannot take benefit of this circular. As

already stated above, petitioners have retired before the circular dated 14.10.2009,

which made 1.4.2009, as the effective date for revision of the pay-scales.

(ii)         The second reason for dismissing of the writ petition is that the

Supreme Court in the case of Officers and Supervisors of IDPL vs. Chairman and


WPC2564/2013                                                                 Page 2 of 4
 MD, IDPL & Ors., 2003 (6) SCC 490 has held that Courts cannot issue directions

to organizations for making of payment of a particular pay-scale when such

companies are sick companies and have no financial resources to make payments

to their employees. The Supreme Court in this regard relied upon one of its earlier

judgments in the case of A.K.Bindal VS. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 163 which

held similarly. I may note that the Supreme Court subsequently in the judgment of

Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen (2007) 1 SCC 408 has

stressed on the fact that Courts cannot direct that a particular organization should

pay a particular scale of pay to its employees and these aspects are best left to the

decision of the executive and the organizations concerned, who are better aware of

the financial conditions for deciding giving of the pay-scales to be paid to its

employees and from which date.

(iii)         The third reason for dismissing of the writ petition so far as some of

the petitioners who have taken voluntary retirement is that once voluntary

retirement is taken, the jural relationship of employer and employee terminates and

an employee has no right to claim any past dues on the basis of revision of pay-

scales once the entire amount of VRS is taken by the employee. This is so stated

in the case of A.K.Bindal (supra) and para 34 thereof which reads as under:-

        "34. This shows that a considerable amount is to be paid to an
        employee ex-gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for

WPC2564/2013                                                               Page 3 of 4
      voluntary retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted. The
     amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is
     paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the
     company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or
     rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in
     business world it is known as 'Golden Handshake'. The main purpose
     of paying this amount is to bring about a compete cessation of the jural
     relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount
     is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the
     company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is
     no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights, with
     his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to
     enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. If the employee is still
     permitted to raise a grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale
     from a retrospective date, even after he has opted for Voluntary
     Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount paid to him, the
     whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be totally frustrated."

                                               (underlining added)

4.           Therefore, on all the aforesaid three counts, the writ petition does not

lie and it is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




APRIL 22, 2013                                       VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib