HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION No. 2215 of 2004
1. L.N.Gupta
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Hindustan Steel
2. General Manager
3. Union of India
...Respondents
! Shri V.G.Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner.
^ Shri P.S.Koshy, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2.
Shri S.K.Beriwal, Standing Counsel for the respondent
No. 3.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Dated:08/07/2008
: Judgement
WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
ORDER
(Passed on 8th day of July, 2008)
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondents to release all the payments of the petitioner as
claimed by him with interest.
2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the
respondent 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the
Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its head office at 1,
Shakespear Sarani, 8th Floor Calcutta – 700071. All the shares
of the respondent No. 1 were transferred to the Central
Government, thus, the respondent No. 1 is a public sector
undertaking. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working
on the supervisory post of Section Officer on the basic pay of
Rs. 7600/- plus allowances. The petitioner made a conditional
application on 7.12.1999 seeking voluntary retirement. The said
application was returned back that the conditional retirement
cannot be accepted. Against the rejection of the conditional
voluntary retirement application, the petitioner preferred a
writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh being W.P.
No. 331 of 2000. The said petition was disposed of by order
dated 27.01.2000. Ultimately, the application of the petitioner
for voluntary retirement was accepted and an order to release
payment of all the employees who had sought voluntary
retirement was ordered. According to the petitioner, he was
entitled to payment as detailed in para 5.8 of the petition,
which is as under:
1. Exgretia payment as against Rs. 424764.00
service of 27 years pay of
401/2 months
2. One month notice pay Rs. 10488.00
3. Gratuity Rs. 150000.00
4. G.P.F. Rs. 75000.00
5. Transportation Allowance Rs. 18000.00
6. Leave Encashment (EL + HPL) Rs. 20000.00
7. Difference of Leave Rs. 15000.00
Encashment
8. Arrears of salary July 1999 Rs. 100000.00
onwards till date
9. Arrears of Central D.A. Rs. 10000.00
10. Outstanding reimbursement Rs. 15000.00
(Medical)
Approx. Grand Total Rs. 838252.00
Less Amount previous Rs. 278413.00
received. –
Net Amount Rs. 559849.00
(Rs. Five Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Eight
Hundred and Forty Nine Only.
3. The petitioner was entitled to free medical treatment as
per the circular dated 20.08.1992 (Annexure P/5), but from his
final payment, a sum to the extent of Rs. 27,862/- was
deducted. The petitioner was also entitled to Rs. 8000/- on
account of reimbursement for special disease. Further, the
petitioner was also entitled to transportation allowance also
vide circular dated 18/19 November, 1993 (Annexure P/6). The
petitioner is a chronic patient of Hypertension neurological
and has undergone micro vain diffused operation for which the
petitioner claims a sum of Rs. 4 lacs.
4. Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been denied his
legal due payments which comes to the tune of Rs. 5,59,849/-
with interest.
5. Shri Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No. 1 and 2, per contra, would submit that the respondent No.
1 company, sometimes in the year 1988, was struggling with the
financial crunch, it was difficult for the company to pay the
wages and salary in respect of the workers and the employees at
all levels at different project units of the company, spread
all over the country. The company became financially weak on
account of drastic fall in revenue earnings for loss of order
from the Steel Authority of India Limited, the principal
purchaser of the products of respondent No. 1. In view of the
above stated situation, the company had to frame scheme for
voluntary retirement (hereinafter referred to as `the VRS’) and
the same was approved by the Board, on grant of financial
assistance (term loan) to the tune of Rs. 318.36 crores from
the State Bank of India and other financial institutions
against the guarantee executed by the Government of India and
on hypothecation of the plants and machinery of the respondent
No. 1 company, by way of special package for revival of the
company.
6. The VRS scheme, which was introduced earlier in November
1988 was again revised with following post retrial benefits
i.e. encashment of half pay leave to CDA pattern employees and
additional leave in the case of workers, reimbursement of
travelling and transportation expenses of personal effects
given for the recorded home town of the employees. The above
stated facilities/benefits were withdrawn on serious objection
of the Principal Director, Commercial Audit, Ranchi with
retrospective effect by order dated 28.08.2000. The petitioner
was paid retrial benefit i.e. ex-gratia provident fund,
gratuity, earned leave encashment, outstanding salary
quantified to the tune of Rs. 2,96,709.50 initially.
7. Shri Koshy would further submit that the basic pay of the
petitioner was Rs. 7600/- in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. The
revised pay with effect from 1.1.99 was frozen. The petitioner,
thereafter, pursuant to the observation made by this Court in
the order dated 01.12.2006, has been paid a sum of Rs.
7,14,150.53, (Document No. 1) which reads as under:
“Details of payments made to Shri L.N.Gupta P.No.
60391 Ex SO/HSCL Bhilai
Date of V.R. 09.06.2000
Item Amount in Reference
Rs.
1. Ex 2,96,709.
Gratia 50
2. Spl. 74,170.50
Exgratia
9,272.00
Total Rs. 3,80,152. Ref. WE/2411 dt. 22.7.2000
00
3. Gratuity 1,39,080. Ref. W/2410 dt. 22.7.2000
00
4. 38,633.00 Ref. WE/2409 dt. 22.7.2000
Encashment
5. CPF 1,02,522. H.O. Cheque No. 427773 dt.
00 26.9.03
(Sent to Bank on 13.10.03)
6. CPF 357.75 Cheque No. 419388 dt.
12.2.03
(Sent to Bank on 26.02.03)
7. CPF 4,104.78 Cheque No. 808762 dt.
31.03.04
(Sent to Home on 14.05.04)
8. Back Log 37,271.00 Cheque No. 412602 dt.
Salary 3.07.02
(Sent to Bank on 5.09.02)
9. Back Log 12,030.00 Cheque No. 881447 dt.
Salary 5.10.04
(Sent to Bank on 18.10.04)
Total 7,14,150.
53
Sd/-
Illegible
B.D.Singh
Manager (Fin)
Hscl/Bhilai"
8. The petitioner was not paid interest as the reasons for
the delay was beyond control of the respondents. The amount
calculated by the petitioner was approximate and not on
actuals. In the affidavit dated 2nd March 2007, filed by the
petitioner, according to him, his claim has still not been
satisfied.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is apparent that
the claims raised by the petitioner is inflated and not on the
basis of actuals, as against the claim of gratuity, it was
determined as 1,39,080/-, the petitioner, after rounding of,
has claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- . Against all the heads, the
petitioner has rounded of and has not proceeded on actuals.
Thus, the figures and calculations made by the respondent
company seems to be correct.
10. Thus, it is held that the retrial benefits as due to the
petitioner stands satisfied. The petitioner was paid a sum of
Rs. 2,96,709.50 in 1995 and after the petitioner was directed
to be reinstated, it was incumbent on the petitioner to pay
back the amount and claim the said amount after compulsory
retirement was granted to the petitioner. Be that as it may,
now nothing remains for adjudication by this Court.
11. With regard to interest, since the respondent No. 1 was in
financial difficulty resulting into taking decision of
voluntarily retiring employees, the petitioner may not be
entitled to higher rate of interest. However, in view of the
fact that the payment of the amount was delayed for a long
period, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date it became due till the actual
payment was made.
12. The Supreme Court, in the matter of A.K.Bindal and another
v. Union of India and others1, observed as under:
“22. ..Therefore, it appears to be the consistent
view of this Court that the economic viability or
the financial capacity of the employer is an
important factor which cannot be ignored while
fixing the wage structure, otherwise the unit itself
may not be able to function and may have to close
down which will inevitably have disastrous
consequences for the employees themselves. The
material on record clearly shows that both FCI and
HFC had been suffering heavy losses for the last
many years and the Government had been giving a
considerable amount for meeting the expenses of the
organisations. In such a situation, the employees
cannot legitimately claim that their pay scale
should necessarily be revised and enhanced even
though the organisations in which they are working
are making continuous losses and are deeply in the
red.”
13. The dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of
A.K.Bindal (supra) was subsequently approved in the matter of
Officers and Supervisors of I.D.P.L. v. Chairman & MD, I.D.P.L.
and others2.
14. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts
of the case, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner
with regard to retrial benefits has been satisfied. In view of
long delay, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date it became due till the date of
actual payment.
15. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is
allowed to the above extent. Costs easy.
JUDGE