CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 3655 of 1997 PETITIONER: RABINDRANATH MUKHOPADHYAY AND ANR. RESPONDENT: COAL INDIA LTD. AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/1997 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY & SUJATA V. MANOHAR JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ORDER
1997(2) SCR 585
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division Bench
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, made on January 15, 1997 in LPA
No..255/96. The first respondent had evolved the LTC Rules for its
executive cadre employees and the same were last revised on May 15, 1989.
Thereunder Clause l(b)(ii) postulates that :
“Once in a block of 4 calender years commencing from the 1st January, 1976
the executive cadre employees will be entitled to the concession under
these rules for journeys to any place in India. This concession will,
however, be in lieu of LTC entitlement of that year to travel to home town
and back. This facility of availing LTC for journeys to any place in India
once in. 4 years will also be available to employees Whose home towns are
either the same or very close to their places of posting and so are not
entitled to LTC for home town.
The employees and/or members of the family may avail of LTC facilities for
travel to the same place or to different places of their choice in respect
of the facility available to visit any place in India in a block of 4
years.”
Subsequently, by the Resolution No. 159 dated September 14, 1996, the
respondent had given option in respect of the benefit of the LTC, to the
Executives of the company or its subsidiary companies without produc-tion
of certificate, as detailed hereunder :
“The executives would have the option to choose any one of the following
alternatives w.e.f. 01.01.1997.
(a) The existing facilities of LTC i.e. the executive with entitled family
members may visit any place of India by entitled class of journey once in
a Block of Four years.
OR
(b) Encash the facility of LTC subject to the limit of Railway fare in the
entitled class upto 1700 KM. each way for the employee and entitled family
members.
(ii) The one time option has to be exercised before 31.12.1996. (iii) Taxes
as applicable has to be paid by the executives. This will take effect on
and from 01.01.1997;”
Consequently, the facility of LTC for travelling to home town Was also
extended to travelling any place in India as per the above resolution dated
September 14, 1996. Instead of production of the certificate of the actual
travel, the Executive have also been given an option either to avail of the
facility or encash the LTC facility, subject to the limit of Railway fare
of the entitled class upto a maximum distance of 1700 k.ms, each way for
the employee and entitled family members. But the above decision has been
given effect to from January 1, 1997. The petitioner appearing in person
has contended in the High Court as well as before us that the fixation of
the date is arbitrary. We find no force in the contention, it is seen that
the aforesaid Resolution communicated by proceedings dated October 10,
1996, postuiates an employee who is entitled to avail of the facility of
LTC, instead of executive class, has been given two options, viz., of
actual performance of the travel once in a block of four years which would
be normal one and a salutory policy to enable the employee to broaden his
vision of thought and action, and to encash the same, instead of actually
travelling, which is an exception and proof of production of the travel
certificate and the expenses incurred therefor has been dispensed with. It
being a policy decision taken by the respondent-Management, the policy was
given effect to from January 1, 1997, obviously the beginning of the
calender year. It is uniformly applicable to all employees of that class.
Under those circumstances, we do not think that there is any arbitrariness
in fixation of the date.
It is then contended that by fixing the date as 1.1.1997, discrimination
has been meted out between all the classes of the employees who retired
before and those who would retire subsequent to 1.1.1997. It may be
fortuitous stand for the employees who would be retiring on or before 31st
December, 1996 without availment of the encashment of LTC but none-theless
he has not been denied the facility of the actual travel by virtue of the
alternative option given. The option is only of encashment and imposed no
prohibition on the travel. It is then contended that the four years’ block
starting from 1.1.1996 would be postponed by fixing the four years block in
the present proceedings and an employee would be deprived of an availment
of the two benefits. We find no force in this contention too. They have not
shifted the commencement of the block year, for availment purpose and it
remains in operation as originally started. It is only a specification that
once in a block of four years, the availment of the LTC or encashment of
LTC would be available. It does not have the eifect of the shifting of the
running of the block period. Under these circumstances, we do not find any
illegality in the decision of the High Court warranting interference.
The special leave petition is dismissed.