IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3534 of 2006(U)
1. MRS.P.PREMKUMARI, PUTHIYANDI HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
3. THE SECRETARY,
4. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE
For Respondent :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :13/02/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).3534/2006
--------------------
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel on both sides. I had
originally proposed to allow the writ petition on
23.1.2009. Later, on a submission made by the
learned counsel for the first respondent, the matter
was again heard. I heard Mr.Muhammed Mustaque
learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.E.K.Nandakumar, learned counsel for the first
respondent and learned Government Pleader
2. Petitioner opted for voluntary retirement from
the first respondent in terms of Ext.P1 scheme.
Clause 1 of Ext.P1 provides for the following financial
package.
“For eligible permanent employees, an
amount equal to one and a half months
emoluments pay plus DA for each
completed year the monthly emoluments
at the time of retirement multipled in the
W.P.(C).3534/2006
2balance months of service left before normal
date of retirement whichever is less.
For example, an employee who has
put in 24 years of service and has got
only one more year or service for
normal retirement would get an
exgratia payment of 12 months
emoluments and not 36 months
emoluments whereas a person who
has put in 20 years of service with 5
more years for retirement, will get
a payment equal to 20 months
emoluments and not 60 months (5
x 12) emoluments.”
3. Writ petition, as it was originally instituted,
contained a claim that the entire amount due to the
petitioner in terms of the scheme, has not been
disbursed so far. There were proceedings earlier and
pursuant to a direction issued in the Contempt of Court
case, the Government issued Ext.P7 which dealt with
the petitioner’s claim for arrears of wages for the
period from 1.5.2003 to 6.4.2004, the latter being the
date on which the petitioner actually left his service. It
is contended that the stand taken in Ext.P7 is in
consonance with Ext.R1(c), Government order dated
W.P.(C).3534/2006
3
24.11.2005, by which the Government had taken a
general decision to satisfy the claim for arrears of
salary raised by the erstwhile employees of public sector
undertakings, which, due to financial stringency, were
brought under a programme called `Social Safety Net
Programme’, SSNP, which is reflected in Ext.P1. Apart
from the financial package for VRS mentioned in Ext.P1,
they are also entitled to wages till the date on which
they had left service. This is denied by the Government
as also the Company. It is this aspect which has been
substantially urged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
4. The stand taken by the Government in Ext.R1(c)
Order, which forms the basis of Ext.P7, was
considered by me in Writ Petition No.3800/2005 and
connected case. Government’s stand in Ext.R1(c) was
upheld. It is seen that the judgment has been affirmed
by the Bench in Writ Appeal No.2835/2007.
5. I have noticed in the aforementioned judgment,
that the amount which the workman receives as a
financial package under the VRS should be treated as
W.P.(C).3534/2006
4
one in full and final settlement of the claim of the
workmen as against the Company for proceeding on
voluntary retirement. This the workman receives when
he is relieved from the Company on VRS. The claim for
arrears of salary was raised by similar workmen, while
it was considered by the Government and this led to
Ext.R1(c). I do not find any reason to take a different
view in the present case which also involves an
interpretation of the same Government Order and
assessment of a similar claim by workmen of a public
sector undertaking brought under the SSNP.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has not received the entire amount due under
the VRS, that is, apart from the claim for arrears of
salary or leave salary for the period from 1.5.2003 to
6.4.2004. Learned counsel for the first respondent
submits that this aspect will be looked into by the
Company and if a representation is filed in this regard
within one month from today detailing the claim, that
will be dealt with and if it is found that the amounts are
still due as per the VRS package and the rules of the
W.P.(C).3534/2006
5
Company, same shall be disbursed within one month
thereafter. If the amount already disbursed is found to
be adequate in terms of the rules, a detailed reply may
be given in this regard to the workman within the
aforementioned period.
7. It is open to the petitioner to move the Government
for enhancement of the arrears of wages which have
been sanctioned under Ext.R1(c). This judgment will not
stand in the way of the petitioner pursuing any such
remedy for enhancement of the arrears of wages before
the Government.
Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs