Delhi High Court
Roop Kumar Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 January, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 10569/2016
% 30th January, 2017
ROOP KUMAR SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arman Roop Sharma, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Khanna, Govt. Pleader
for R-1/Union of India.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that there is mis-
joinder of causes of action and parties so far as 15 petitioners are concerned
inasmuch as cases of petitioner nos. 1,2 and 15 are on a different plane as
compared to other petitioners nos. 3 to 14 inasmuch as whereas petitioners
nos. 3 to 14 have taken Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), petitioner
nos. 1,2 and 15 have normally retired from the respondent no.2/company.
Accordingly, it is prayed, and which prayer is allowed, giving liberty to the
petitioners nos. 1,2 and 15 to file a fresh writ petition not only on the facts
as stated in this writ petition but also on any additional facts and causes of
action to claim a particular pay-scale, of course in accordance with law.
2. That leaves us with petitioner nos. 3 to 14. These petitioners
had opted for a Voluntary Retirement Scheme and they have taken benefits
of Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The claim of these petitioners is that they
should be allowed to take benefits not under the extant Voluntary
Retirement Scheme which was applicable when they took the voluntary
retirement but voluntary retirement of these petitioner nos. 3 to 14 should be
in terms of a subsequent VRS Scheme dated 18.5.2016 annexed as
Annexure P-5.
3. In law, once employees who seek voluntary retirement are
granted voluntary retirement, then such employees thereafter cannot seek
fresh benefits under a fresh voluntary retirement scheme. This is in view of
the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K.Bindal & Another Vs.
Union of India and Others (2003) 5 SCC 163 which states that on taking of
VRS Scheme an employee opts for a golden handshake and thereafter there
is complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and
employee and consequently such an employee cannot be permitted to raise a
grievance thereafter with respect to enhancement of pay-scale from a
retrospective date or taking fresh monetary benefits, and which if allowed,
would completely frustrate the purpose of VRS Scheme. The observations
which have been made by the Supreme Court are contained in para 34,
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 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. In A.K.Bindal's case (supra) the Supreme Court has also held
that in view of the financial conditions of separate PSUs, separate pay-
scales are fixed, and courts normally do not interfere in such fixation of pay-
scales, and it is noted that fixation of a particular scale would necessarily
and obviously have co-relation to a VRS Scheme which is offered to and
taken by an employee.
5. I may note that there is no cause of action pleaded in the writ
petition of petitioner nos. 3 to 14 having to compulsorily opt for VRS
Scheme, and even if that pleading was made, the issue would stand covered
by para 35 of A.K.Bindal's case (supra) and which reads as under:-
"35. The contention that the employees opted for VRS under any kind of
compulsion is not worthy of acceptance. The petitioners are officers of the
two companies and are mature enough to weigh the pros and cons of the
options which were available to them. They could have waited and pursued
their claim for revision of pay scale without opting for VRS. However they,
in their wisdom thought that in the fact situation VRS was a better option
available and chose the same. After having applied for VRS and taken the
money it is not open to them to contend that they exercised the option under
any kind of compulsion. In view of the fact that nearly ninety nine per cent of
employees have availed of the VRS Scheme and have left the companies
(FCI & HFC), the writ petition no longer survives and has become
infructuous." (underlining added)
6. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed
on account of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
A.K.Bindal (supra) as regards petitioner nos. 3 to 14, but the petition is
allowed to be withdrawn as prayed for with the liberty as given above so far
as petitioner nos. 1,2 and 15 are concerned.
JANUARY 30, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
ib
