{"id":130332,"date":"2006-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006"},"modified":"2017-04-07T00:34:48","modified_gmt":"2017-04-06T19:04:48","slug":"hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare … vs Heavy Engineering Corporation … on 24 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare … vs Heavy Engineering Corporation … on 24 February, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5367 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nHEC VOLUNTARY RETD.EMPS.WELFARE SOC. & ANR\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHEAVY ENGINEERING CORPORATION  LTD. & ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nWITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs.5368-5378 OF 2001<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
These two appeals involving common questions of fact and law
\nwere taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this
\ncommon judgment.\n<\/p>\n
The members of the appellant Union were employees of Heavy
\nEngineering Corporation Limited, the respondent herein (`the Company’).
\nIt is a sick company.  It was referred to BIFR in terms of the provisions of
\nSick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.  As one of the
\nmeasures for revival of the company it floated a scheme for voluntary
\nretirement of its employees.  One of such scheme was floated in the year
\n1987 which remained in force upto 1990.  On and about 20.10.90 a revised
\nVoluntary Retirement Scheme was floated.  The said scheme was to remain
\neffective for an initial period of one year but admittedly the same has been
\nextended from time to time.  Both unionised and non-unionised employees
\nnumbering in thousands opted thereunder.  Pursuant to or in furtherance of
\nthe said scheme the following benefits were to be given to the employees
\nopting for voluntary retirement:\n<\/p>\n
“5.1.1\tCompensation at the rate of one and half
\nmonth months’ salary for each completed
\nyear of service, subject to a ceiling equal to
\nthe employee’s monthly salary at the time
\nof voluntary retirement multiplied by
\nbalance months of service left before the
\nnormal date of superannuation.\n<\/p>\n
5.1.2\tPayment of salary for the notice period as
\nprovided in the offer of appointment of the
\nemployee.\n<\/p>\n
5.1.3\tCash value of the unavailed Earned Leave
\nat the credit of the employee on the
\neffective date of voluntary retirement
\nsubject to the existing limit of 240 days.\n<\/p>\n
5.1.4\tPayment of Provident Fund accumulation
\ninclusive of Corporation’s contribution in
\nfull together with interest thereon standing
\nto the employee’s credit in the Provident
\nFund Account as on the date of the
\nvoluntary retirement.\n<\/p>\n
5.1.5\tGratuity as admissible under the Gratuity
\nRules applicable to the employee.\n<\/p>\n
5.1.6\tPayment of TA, cost of transportation of
\nbaggage, Transfer Grant and incidental
\nTravelling Allowance etc. as in the case of
\nserving employees on transfer for
\nproceeding to his Home Town or to the
\nplace where he intends to settle in India.”\n<\/p>\n
The Company issued a circular letter being Circular No.5\/97 dated
\n9th October, 1997 effecting revision in the scale of pay.  The same, although
\nissued on 9th October, 1997, was given retrospective effect from 1.1.1992.
\nIt was to remain in force for a period of 5 years from the said date, i.e., upto
\n31.12.1996.  Clauses 3.2 and 3.3 thereof read as under:\n<\/p>\n
“3.2\t\tThe revised Scales of Pay shall also be applicable
\non a pro-rata basis to only those Executives, non Unionised
\nSupervisors and Employees in equivalent salary grades who
\nwere on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992 but have
\nsubsequently ceased to be in service of the Corporation on
\naccount of superannuation or death.\n<\/p>\n
3.3\t        Benefits of revision of Scales of Pay shall not be
\napplicable to those Executives, Non Unionised Supervisors
\nand Employees in equivalent Salary Grades of the Corporation
\nwho were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992 but
\nhave subsequently left the services of the Corporation for the
\nfollowing reasons:-\n<\/p>\n
3.3.1   Dismissal;\n<\/p>\n
3.3.2\tDischarge;\n<\/p>\n
3.3.3\tResignation without permission;\n<\/p>\n
3.3.4\tResignation in cases where disciplinary action for
\nmisconduct    involving moral turpitude has been
\ninitiated or contemplated.”\n<\/p>\n
The appellants herein indisputably opted for the said voluntary
\nretirement scheme dated 22.10.1990 and retired between the period 1.1.1992
\nand 31.12.1996.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the revision of scales of pay by the Company in terms
\nof the afore-mentioned circular dated 9th October, 1997 a contention was
\nraised by the appellant that they were entitled to the benefit thereof.  The
\nmatter was referred to the Government of India and the Ministry of
\nIndustries by a letter dated 24th March, 1993 stated that the employees who
\nhad opted for voluntary retirement in terms of the aforementioned scheme
\nwere entitled to the benefit of the revision of pay in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
“. the employees who have voluntarily retired
\nafter 1.1.1992, on the effective date of revision of
\nwages and salary, as the case may be, he will be
\neligible for arrears of wages including arrear of
\ncompensation paid under the approved voluntary
\nretirement scheme.  However, the arrears will be
\npayable only after the wage revision is approved.  It
\nis the responsibility of the company to pay the
\narrears arising from wage revision.  Arrears on
\naccount of V.R.S., compensation, if any, may
\nhowever be met from the Budget grant of the
\ncompany for V.R.S. for the year in which such
\nrevision takes effect.”\n<\/p>\n
As despite the said purported direction of the Central Government
\nthe benefit of the revised scale of pay were not extended to the appellants
\nherein, they filed a writ petition before the Ranchi Bench of the High Court
\nof Judicature at Patna (now Jharkhand High Court).  A learned Single Judge
\nof the said Court dismissed the said writ petition opining that the appellants
\nhad no legal right in relation thereto.  It was furthermore opined that when
\nthe said circular No.5 of 1997 was issued, the appellants having voluntarily
\nretired, it was not applicable in their case.\n<\/p>\n
Letters Patent Appeals preferred there against by the appellants
\nwere also dismissed.  The Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment,
\nwhich is impugned herein, relying upon or on the basis of Hindustan
\nMachines Tools Ltd. & Anr. vs. M.S. Kang\/P.N. Kashyap<\/a> reported in
\n(1997) 11 SCC 186 held that as the respondents had voluntarily retired
\nunder a Special Scheme, they were not entitled for revised scale of pay as
\nrevised under the said Circular No.45 of 1990 dated 1-3-1991.\n<\/p>\n
In assailing the said judgments, Mr. S.B. Upadhyay and Mr. M.A.
\nChinnasamy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
\nwould submit that the High Court committed a manifest error in arriving at
\nthe said conclusion, in so far as it proceeded on the basis that the voluntary
\nretirement scheme dated 22.10.1990 was a special scheme as the same
\nremained in force for a period of 10 years.  It was furthermore urged that the
\nCompany being a sick industry, it had taken recourse to the voluntary
\nretirement on a long-term basis and even prior to introduction of the said
\nscheme of the year 1990, another scheme had been floated.  The learned
\ncounsel for the appellants furthermore urged that no distinction exists
\nbetween ‘voluntary retirement’ and ‘superannuation’ and in support of the
\nsaid proposition, reliance has been placed on V. Kasturi vs. Managing
\nDirector, State Bank of India, Bombay & Anr.<\/a>  (1998) 8 SCC 30.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe respondent, on the other hand, would contend that having regard to the
\ncontract of voluntary retirement, the concerned employees having already
\ntaken the benefits admissible under the scheme including the proportionate
\npay for their future service were not entitled to benefits of revised scale of
\npay.  The employer in arranging its financial plan on request to payment of
\nbenefits under the voluntary retirement scheme could not and did not
\nanticipate that there would be a revision in the pay scale and the same would
\nbe applicable also to the employees who had opted for voluntary retirement.
\nPensioners, according to the learned counsel, stand absolutely on a different
\nfooting inasmuch as even after their superannuation they continue to draw
\npension.  Similarly, the family members of the deceased employees would
\nbe entitled to family pension.  Upon such voluntary retirement in terms of
\nthe scheme, the jural relationship comes to an end, Mr. Ranjit Kumar
\nargued.  Drawing our attention to the distinction between clauses 3.2 and 3.3
\nafore-mentioned, it was submitted that it specifically lays down as to what
\nwas to be included has been included and what was to be excluded has been
\nexcluded.  Thus, the Company never had any intention to include the cases
\nof the employees who had opted for voluntary retirement in terms of the
\nscheme, they have not been included in clause 3.2 of the Circular.  Revised
\npay scale being applicable to a person who is in service, a’fortiori the same
\nwould be inapplicable to the persons who are not in service, according to the
\nlearned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
In reply, Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel submitted that the
\njural relationship was created in terms of the scheme itself and in this behalf
\nour attention was drawn to paragraph 20.2 of afore-mentioned Circular
\nNo.5\/97 which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“20.2 \tOnly those separated Executives,
\nSupervisors and Employees in the equivalent salary
\ngrades who ceased to be in employment of the
\nCorporation due to superannuation or death on or
\nafter 01.01.1992 shall be eligible for arrears on
\npro-rata basis.”\n<\/p>\n
An offer for voluntary retirement in terms of a scheme, when
\naccepted, leads to a concluded contract between the employer and the
\nemployee.   In terms of such a scheme, an employee has an option either to
\naccept or not to opt therefor.  The scheme is purely voluntary, in terms
\nwhereof the tenure of service is curtailed which is permissible in law.  Such
\na scheme is ordinarily floated with a purpose of downsizing the employees.
\nIt is beneficial both to the employees as well as to the employer.  Such a
\nscheme is issued for effective functioning of the industrial undertakings.
\nAlthough the Company is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the
\nConstitution of India, the terms and conditions of service would be governed
\nby the contract of employment.  Thus, unless the terms and conditions of
\nsuch a contract are governed by a statute or statutory rules, the provisions of
\nContract Act would be applicable both at the formulation of the contract as
\nalso the determination thereof.  By reason of such a scheme only an
\ninvitation of offer is floated.  When pursuant to or in furtherance of such a
\nvoluntary retirement scheme an employee opts therefor, he makes an offer
\nwhich upon acceptance by the employer gives rise to a contract.  Thus, as
\nthe matter relating to voluntary retirement is not governed by any statute,
\nthe provisions of Indian Contract Act, 1872, therefore, would be applicable
\nto. [See Bank of India & Ors. vs. O.P. Swarnakar & Ors..<\/a> (2003) 2 SCC\n<\/p>\n
721)] <\/p>\n
It is also common knowledge that a scheme of voluntary
\nretirement is preceded by a financial planning.  Finances for such purpose,
\neither in full or in part, might have been provided for by the Central
\nGovernment.  Thus financial implications arising out of implementation of a
\nscheme must have been borne in mind by the Company, particularly when it
\nis a sick industrial undertaking.  Offers of such number of employees for
\nvoluntary retirement, in that view of the matter, were to be accepted by the
\nCompany only to the extent of finances available therefor.\n<\/p>\n
We have noticed hereinbefore the benefits admissible under the
\nscheme.  The employee offering to opt for such voluntary retirement, not
\nonly gets his salary for the period mentioned therein but also gets
\ncompensation calculated in the manner specified therein, apart from other
\nbenefits enumerated thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
A clarification was issued on and about 17th July, 1992 whereby
\nand whereunder the benefit of compensation and notice pay was restricted to
\nBasic Pay and Dearness Allowance that would have been paid to the
\nemployees till the date of their supernanuation and in case the employee
\nbeing released after serving the full notice period or part thereof and having
\ndrawn the salary for the same, the notice pay would not be admissible to that
\nextent.  It is on the afore-mentioned premise clauses 3.2 and 3.3 of the said
\nscheme are to be construed.\n<\/p>\n
The revised scale of pay have been made applicable on a pro-rata
\nbasis to those employees who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on
\n01.01.1992 but have subsequently ceased to be in service of the Corporation
\non account of superannuation or death.  While extending the said benefit,
\nthe word “only” has been used which is of some significance.  Clause 3.3 of
\nthe scheme which excludes the applicability of the scheme categorically
\nstates that the same shall not be applicable to those who were on the rolls of
\nthe Corporation on the said date, but subsequently left the services for the
\nreasons stated thereunder, namely :\n<\/p>\n
1.\tDismissal;\n<\/p>\n
2.\tDischarge;\n<\/p>\n
3.\tResignation without permission;\n<\/p>\n
4.\tResignation in cases where disciplinary action for misconduct
\ninvolving moral turpitude has been initiated or contemplated.\n<\/p>\n
The question which arises for our consideration is whether in
\nview of the fact that the employees who had opted for voluntary retirement
\nhaving not been excluded from the purview of Clause 3.3 of the said
\nCircular No.5\/97, would be treated to be included or the benefits thereof
\nwould be available to only such employees who come within the purview of
\nClause 3.2 thereof ?\n<\/p>\n
Construction of the afore-mentioned provisions undoubtedly
\nwould depend upon the purport and object of the voluntary retirement
\nscheme vis-a-vis the retrospective effect given to the revision of pay in
\nterms of the afore-mentioned circular dated 9th October, 1997<\/p>\n
The voluntary retirement scheme speaks of a package.  One
\neither takes it or rejects it.  While offering to opt for the same, presumably
\nthe employee takes into consideration the future implication also.\n<\/p>\n
It is not in dispute that the effect of such voluntary retirement
\nscheme is cessation of jural relationship between the employer and the
\nemployee.  Once an employee opts to retire voluntarily, in terms of the
\ncontract he cannot raise a claim for a higher salary unless by reason of a
\nstatute he becomes entitled thereto.  He may also become entitled thereto
\neven if a policy in that behalf is formulated by the Company.\n<\/p>\n
We have indicated hereinbefore that before floating such a
\nscheme both the employer as also the employee take into account financial
\nimplications in relation thereto.  When an invitation to offer is floated by
\nreason of such a scheme, the employer must have carried out exercises as
\nregard the financial implication thereof.  If a large number of employees opt
\ntherefor, having regard to the financial constraints an employer may not
\naccept offers of a number of employees and may confine the same to only a
\nsection of optees.  Similarly when an employer accepts the
\nrecommendations of a Pay Revision Committee, having regard to the
\nfinancial implications thereof it may accept or reject the whole or a part of
\nit.  The question of inclusion of employees who form a special class by
\nthemselves, would, thus, depend upon the object and purport thereof.  The
\nappellants herein do not fall either in clauses 3.2 or 3.3 expressly.  They
\nwould be treated to be included in clause 3.2, provided they are considered
\nat par with superannuated employee.  They would be excluded if they are
\ntreated to be discharged employee.\n<\/p>\n
We have noticed that admittedly thousands of employees had
\nopted for voluntary retirement during the period in question.  They
\nindisputably form a distinct and different class.  Having given our anxious
\nconsideration thereto, we are of the opinion that neither they are discharged
\nemployees nor are superannuated employees.  The expression
\n“superannuation” connotes a distinct meaning.  It ordinarily means, unless
\notherwise provided for in the statute, that not only he reaches the age of
\nsuperannuation prescribed therefor, but also becomes entitled to the retiral
\nbenefits thereof including pension.  “Voluntary retirement” could have
\nfallen within the afore-mentioned expression, provided it was so stated
\nexpressly in the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
Financial considerations are, thus, a relevant factor both for
\nfloating a scheme of voluntary retirement as well as for revision of pay.
\nThose employees who opted for voluntary retirement, make a planning for
\nthe future.  At the time of giving option, they know where they stand.  At
\nthat point of time they did not anticipate that they would get the benefit of
\nrevision in the scales of pay.  They prepared themselves to contract out of
\nthe jural relationship by resorting to “golden handshake”.  They are bound
\nby there own act. The parties are bound by the terms of contract of
\nvoluntary retirement.  We have noticed hereinbefore that unless a statute or
\nstatutory provision interdict, the relationship between the parties to act
\npursuant to or in furtherance of the voluntary retirement scheme, is
\ngoverned by contract.  By such contract, they can opt out for such other
\nterms and conditions as may be agreed upon.  In this case the terms and
\nconditions of the contract are not governed by a statute or statutory rules.\n<\/p>\n
The question came for consideration before the Division
\nBench of this Court in A.K. Bindal & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.<\/a>
\n[(2003) 5 SCC 163] wherein this Court took notice of the fact that in
\nimplementation of such a scheme a considerable amount has been paid to
\nthe employee ex gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts therefor.
\nIt has further been noticed that the payment of compensation is granted not
\nfor doing any work or rendition of service and in lie of his leaving the
\nservices of the company.\n<\/p>\n
[See also Officers & Supervisors of I.D.P.L. vs. Chairman
\n& M.D., I.D.P.L. & Ors.<\/a>  (2003) 6 SCC 490]<\/p>\n
In State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. vs. A.P. Pensioners
\nAssociation & Ors.<\/a>  [JT 2005 (10) SC 115], this Court categorically held
\nthat financial implication is a relevant criteria for the State Government to
\ndetermine as to what benefits can be granted pursuant to or in furtherance of
\nthe recommendations of a Pay Revision Committee.  A’ fortiori while taking
\nthat factor into account, an employer indisputably would also take into
\nconsideration the number of employees to whom such benefit can be
\nextended.\n<\/p>\n
It will also be germane for such a purpose to take into
\nconsideration the question as to whether those who are no longer on the rolls
\nof the company should be given the benefit thereof.\n<\/p>\n
Considering the matter from that context, we are of the opinion
\nthat it cannot be said that the Company intended to extend the said benefits
\nto those who had opted for voluntary retirement. Clause 3.2 of the circular
\nincludes only those who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992,
\nas also those who ceased to be in service on that date on account of
\nsuperannuation or death.  The appellants do not come in the said category.
\nIn view of the fact that they have not been expressly included within the
\npurview thereof, we are of the opinion that although they have not been
\nexcluded by clause 3.3, they would be deemed to be automatically excluded.\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. & Anr. vs. M.S.\n<\/p>\n
Kang\/P.N. Kashyap<\/p>\n
<\/a> (1997) 11 SCC 186, this Court observed that <\/p>\n
“10. ..Those who retired on attaining the age of
\n58 years or voluntarily retired under Rule 24.2(b) or <\/p>\n
(c), as the case may be, under the Conduct,
\nDiscipline and Appeal Rules referred to hereinbefore
\nare the persons referred to in clause 2.2.2 of the
\noffice order.  The benefits of the revision of pay
\nscales shall not be applicable to those persons who
\nwere on the rolls of the Company as on 31-12-1986
\nbut subsequently left the service of the Company
\nbefore the date of issue of Office Order No.45 of
\n1990 for any reason, whatsoever, including
\nresignation except the category mentioned in clause
\n2.2 above.  Thereby the necessary implication is that
\nall those who are covered and stand on the same
\nfooting are excluded except to the extent of gratuity,
\nrevision of the terminal benefits as mentioned in para
\n6.13 which postulates that gratuity paid or payable to
\nemployees covered under clause 2.2 will be
\nrecalculated on the revised pay subject to the
\nprescribed ceiling.  Thus, it could be seen that the
\ndistinction has been drawn between employees who
\nretired voluntarily under rule 24.2 of the Conduct,
\nDiscipline and Appeal rules or the employees who
\nretied under the Special Scheme operating from time
\nto time.  The respondents having retired under the
\nSpecial Scheme are not employees covered under the
\nSpecial Scheme are not employees covered under the
\nvoluntary retirement under Rule   24.2 of the
\nConduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules referred to
\nhereinbefore.”\n<\/p>\n
The expression “Special Scheme” used therein must be
\nunderstood in the context of a general Scheme of employment governing the
\nterms and conditions of service or which is a part of the statutory rules
\ngoverning the service of the employees.  In this sense also the Voluntary
\nRetirement Scheme is a Special Scheme.  The scheme was initially
\nintroduced for one year.  It might have been extended from time to time.
\nExtension of such scheme indisputably must have been on the basis of
\nexercises resorted to by the employer as regards the financial implications
\nthereof, availability of fund, average number of employees opting therefor
\nand other relevant factors.  Only because the said scheme remained in force
\nfor a total period of 10 years, the same would not mean that it became a part
\nof the general terms and conditions of contract of employment.  Furthermore
\nevidently as the scheme floated in 1987 did not work to the satisfaction of
\nthe Company, it was replaced by the year 1990 scheme upon extending
\nmore benefits to the employees.\n<\/p>\n
State Bank of India vs. A.N. Gupta & Ors.<\/a> [(1997) 8 SCC
\n60] whereupon Mr. Upadhayay placed strong reliance, departmental
\nproceeding could be initiated in terms of the pension rules.  It is in that
\ncontext this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“It cannot be said that an employee retires only on
\nsuperannuation and there is no other circumstance
\nunder which an employee can retire.  Retirement
\non superannuation is not the only mode of
\nretirement known to service jurisprudence.  There
\ncan be other types of retirements like premature
\nretirement, either compulsory or voluntary.  It
\nwould be in the case of a premature retirement or
\nany other contingency when an employee leaves
\nthe service of the Bank before he superannuates,
\nRule 11 would become applicable.  Retirement on
\nsuperannuation is automatic as per Rule 26 of the
\nService Rules.  No further action on the part of
\nthe Executive Committee of the Central Board of
\nthe Bank would be required in such a case and rule
\n11 will not be applicable.”\n<\/p>\n
The said has no application in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
It has not been suggested that voluntary retirement, in absence
\nof any express statutory rule governing the filed, would bring about a case
\nof superannuation.  In V. Kasturi (supra) a new Rule was introduced
\nproviding for pension of an employee after retirement on completion of 20
\nyears of service, provided he requested in writing therefor.  The questions
\nwhich fall for consideration therein was that if a person was eligible for
\npension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time of
\nsubsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, whether he would
\nbecome entitled to enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more
\npension as per the new formula of computation of pension.  In the fact
\nsituation obtaining therein, it was held that employees could be divided in
\ntwo categories, i.e., those who were eligible for pension at the time of his
\nretirement and those who were not.  Whereas in the case of first category the
\nbenefit of the amended provisions would be applicable, but in the second it
\nwould not.   V. Kasturi (supra) also, thus, in our opinion, is not applicable
\nto the fact of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
It may be true that the Central government interpreted the
\nprovision differently, but in the absence of any statutory provision the same
\nis not binding upon the respondent.   It is of some interest to note that the
\nCentral Government opined that the Company itself has to bear the burnt of
\nadditional burden which on all probabilities was an impossible task.\n<\/p>\n
Our attention has not been drawn to the provision of any
\nstatute that even in its day to day functioning the Company would be bound
\nby any direction issued by the Central Government.  It may be that the
\nrespondent is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of
\nthe Companies Act.  It may be that entire shareholding of the Company is
\nheld by the the President of India or his nominee but in law it is a separate
\njuristic entity and, thus, in absence of any statutory provision, the Company
\nwas not bound by any such clarification issued by the Central Government.
\nEven where a statute confers such a jurisdiction on the Central Government,
\nthe same must be held to be confined only to the provisions contained
\ntherein.  [See State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi & Ors.<\/a> (2006) 1 SCC 667]<\/p>\n
Although either before the High Court or before us no
\nsubmissions were made relying on or on the basis of office memorandum
\ndated 5th May, 2000, a copy whereof has been annexed only with the written
\nsubmissions.  We are, however, of the opinion that the same would not
\nadvance the case of the appellants for more than one reason.  Firstly, the
\nsaid office memorandum dated 5th May, 2000 cannot be considered by us as
\nthe same had been filed for the first time with the written submissions.  No
\nopportunity therfor had been given to the respondents to respond thereto.
\nSecondly, the same is a general circular whereas the circular letter dated 24th
\nMay, 1993 issued by the Union of India deals with the particular problem
\nwherein it has categorically been stated that the Central Government shall
\nnor undertake the financial responsibility therefor.  In any event, the said
\nletter refers to the schemes which might have come into force after 2000.  It
\nevidently, does not refer to the 1987 Scheme vis-`-vis the revision of the
\npay scales.\n<\/p>\n
The Appellants filed the writ petition relying on or on the basis
\nof the aforementioned circular of the Union of India dated 24th May, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the
\nimpugned judgment cannot be faulted with.  The appeals, thus, being devoid
\nof any merit are dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare … vs Heavy Engineering Corporation … on 24 February, 2006 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5367 of 2001 PETITIONER: HEC VOLUNTARY RETD.EMPS.WELFARE SOC. & ANR RESPONDENT: HEAVY ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD. & ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Dalveer […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare ... vs Heavy Engineering Corporation ... on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare ... vs Heavy Engineering Corporation ... on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-06T19:04:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare … vs Heavy Engineering Corporation … on 24 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-06T19:04:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4273,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare ... vs Heavy Engineering Corporation ... on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-06T19:04:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare … vs Heavy Engineering Corporation … on 24 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare ... vs Heavy Engineering Corporation ... on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare ... vs Heavy Engineering Corporation ... on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-06T19:04:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare … vs Heavy Engineering Corporation … on 24 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-06T19:04:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006"},"wordCount":4273,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006","name":"Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare ... vs Heavy Engineering Corporation ... on 24 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-06T19:04:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hec-voluntary-retd-emps-welfare-vs-heavy-engineering-corporation-on-24-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hec Voluntary Retd.Emps.Welfare … vs Heavy Engineering Corporation … on 24 February, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}