K.P. Agarwal And Ors. vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4680 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 2975/1999

%                                                     8th October, 2013

K.P. AGARWAL AND ORS.                                 ..... Petitioners
                  Through:               None.


                           Versus

THE   CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING                       DIRECTOR,  CEMENT
CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.                               ......Respondent
                 Through: None.

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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           No one appears for the petitioner although it is 3.00 P.M. No

one even appeared earlier on behalf of petitioner on 5.4.2012.             I have

therefore perused the record and am proceeding to decide the matter.

2.           Petitioners   were     employees    of   the    respondent/Cement

Corporation of India who took voluntary retirement on 30.4.1992 (petitioner

no.1), 3.8.1993 (petitioner no.2) and 29.5.1992 (petitioner no.3). Petitioners

claimed that subsequently pay scales and DA had been revised w.e.f

1.1.1992, however, as per that O.M. dated 17.4.1996 cases of ex-gratia

W.P.(C) No.2975/1999                                                 Page 1 of 4
 against VRS settled during period from 1.1.1992 to the date of

implementation on 17.4.1996 was not to be reopened hence petitioners are

denied the benefits of higher ex-gratia amounts.

3.           Petitioners impugn the O.M. dated 17.4.1996 which denies the

petitioners ex-gratia payment of difference of pay on account of revision of

pay scales. Impugned O.M. issued after petitioners taking VRS is pleaded as

being arbitrary.

4.           The Supreme Court in the case of A.K.Bindal Vs. Union of

India (2003) 5 SCC 163 has held that once a person takes VRS, the

relationship of employer and employee snaps and such employee cannot

claim any monetary benefits on account of his past services with the

employer. Supreme Court has held that VRS is a golden handshake and on

receiving of ex-gratia payment an employee ceases to be an employee and

can claim no other benefits of past services rendered with the employer.

Para 34 of the judgment in the case of A.K. Bindal (supra) is relevant and

the same 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 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.
W.P.(C) No.2975/1999                                           Page 2 of 4
      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)


5.          It may be noted that the respondent in the counter-affidavit has

stated that there was a specific reason for not reopening the cases prior to

17.4.1996 as funds available from the National Renewal Fund (NRF) had

already been exhausted by allowing VRS to a number of employees and

therefore while implementing revision of IDA scales of pay it was decided

not to reopen the VRS cases as it could not have been possible for the

respondent-corporation to arrange funds for payment of difference in the

emoluments of ex-gratia amounts which were initially paid from NRF.

6.          It is therefore clear that petitioners have no legal right to file

this writ petition in view of categorical ratio in the case of A.K. Bindal


W.P.(C) No.2975/1999                                            Page 3 of 4
 (supra) which holds that an employee after taking VRS which is a golden

handshake cannot agitate any claim against his employer for past services

rendered with the employer.

7.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, and

the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




OCTOBER 08, 2013                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne