Delhi High Court
Sohan Lal & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 23 July, 2018
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 23rd July, 2018
+ LPA 560/2017
SOHAN LAL & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Mr.Rishabh Jetley
and Ms.Urvi Mohan, Advts.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Arpit Shukla, G.P. for R-1/UOI.
Ms.Sonia A. Menon and
Mr.Himanshu Saini, Advts. for R-
2/HVOC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. By the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants challenge the order
dated 11.07.2017 passed in W.P.(C) 5704/2017 by the learned Single
Judge.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of the appeal are that the
appellants herein retired on 31.07.2016, 30.09.2015 & 31.08.2014 after
serving as regular employees of Breakfast Food Unit of Hindustan
Vegetable Oil Corporation Ltd. (HVOC). The Improved Voluntary
Retirement Scheme (IVRS) floated on 16.08.2016 for the benefit of
employees on regular rolls being made applicable as on 01.08.2016, has
led to filing of W.P.(C) 5704/2017 wherein the following prayers were
made:
"In the present facts and circumstances and in the larger
interests of justice, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) To allow the present petition; and
b) To issue a writ of mandamus, order, direction to the
Respondents to compute the retirement dues of the
petitioners and their terminal dues as per the 2007 pay scales
of Government of India and as extended to employees under
the Improved Voluntary Retirement Scheme ("IVRS") of the
Respondent No.2 dated 16.08.2016 and to pay the
differential amount within such time period and along with
interest at such rate of interest as this Hon'ble Court may
deem just and fair in the facts of the case and in the interests
of justice;
c) To Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners;
d) To Pass any such other order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in limine on the
ground that when the IVRS was floated on 16.08.2016 the appellants
herein were not on the roll of HVOC and as such they would not be
covered under the IVRS 2016. Another reason for dismissing the writ
petition was that should such a claim be entertained, then there would
be large number of similarly placed persons who had retired prior to
2017 and who may have similar benefit. The retirees would, of course,
be regulated by the rules in place on the date of their retirement.
4. Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, counsel for the appellants, at this stage, submits that,
in fact, an earlier writ petition was filed being W.P.(C) 10569/2016,
which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.01.2017 with liberty to
approach this court again highlighting the voluntary retiral benefits
including gratuity etc. as also any additional facts regarding a particular
pay scale in accordance with law. Mr. Ghose has drawn the attention of
the Court to the note dated 18.05.2016 of the Cabinet Committee,
Economic Affairs wherein they had approved the IVRS package but
one thing which would be clear on the reading of this note was that a
package was worked out to provide the employees an improved VRS
package for the retirement rehabilitation. Counsel further submits that
having advantage of this note and the objective of the package, he
would re-agitate the question as per liberty granted in
W.P.(C).10569/2016 but without directly seeking the same benefit as
awarded under the VRS package, which was the prime ground taken in
the writ petition and subject matter of the present LPA.
5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues sought to be
raised, we find no infirmity in the reasoning of the Learned Single
Judge. The appeal is dismissed. In view of the stand taken by the
counsel for the appellant, the liberty, as prayed for, is granted. Keeping
the rights of both the parties open, the appellant would be free to seek
such remedy, if available, in accordance with law.
C.M.30215/2017
6. The application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the
appeal.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 23, 2018/rb
