CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3738 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 02,2011 Baljit Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS New India Assurance Company, Mumbai and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners, who entered into the service of the respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited as Development Officer, had worked for 22 to 30 years. The service record of the petitioners was statedly outstanding with no adverse report. In the year 2003, the respondent-Insurance Company framed a Rationalization Scheme, 2003 for Development Officers. Pursuant to the said scheme, the petitioners submitted their option to seek voluntary retirement under Special Voluntary Retirement CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3738 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Package. Before this Scheme could be implemented, the same was challenged in various High Courts by some of the employees. Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter withdrew all the cases from different High Courts before it and has upheld the Scheme in an order passed in the year 2008. The Scheme, which was framed in the year 2003, thus, was kept in abeyance during the pendency of the cases till 2008. The petitioners, who were serving as Development Officers and had sought voluntary retirement, were not relieved or retired under the said Scheme. Ultimately, the petitioners were relieved in the year 2008, once this Scheme was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondent-Insurance Company, without affording any opportunity of hearing, deducted non-core benefits paid to the petitioners from their retiral dues. The petitioners have impugned this order on the ground that they had admittedly worked as Development Officers (Marketing) for the said period and had actually spent allowances for procuring business for the respondent-Company within the cost ratio as prescribed. The petitioners, thus, plead that they would be entitled to the non-core benefits, which had been wrongly deducted from their retiral dues. The petitioners would also point out that this Court has resolved similar controversy by allowing Civil Writ Petition Nos.14088 of 2009 (Manoj Luthra Vs. New India Assurance Company and others) and 14280 of 2009 (Mohanish Manik and others Vs. New India Assurance Company and others), which were allowed on 13.1.2010, setting-aside the impugned recovery of non-core benefits. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3738 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: The Court has held that when the petitioners have actually worked as Development Officer (Marketing) for the period 1.4.2003 to 11.4.2008, then the respondent-Insurance Company can not deny them the non-core benefits, which in fact are the amount actually spent by the petitioners in procuring business for the respondent- Company in the course of their duties. The petitioners would claim that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision in these writ petitions, which is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-7. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed reply. By way of preliminary objection, it is disclosed that Central Government amended service conditions of the development staff through a notification dated 31.1.2003, calling upon them to give fresh option regarding voluntary retirement, upon which they would be given package, depending upon the age and service. The petitioners had given their option and were accordingly relieved from their service on 11.4.2008, after acceptance of their option regarding their voluntary retirement. It is stated that the Development Officers are entitled to normal grade increment and in addition to that non-core benefits are payable to them on the basis of their performance. Non-core benefits are not payable if such officers do not perform. In such eventuality, instead of regular annual increment, they are visited with decrement. It is conceded that the petitioners had remained in service while the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the challenge made to this Scheme. The Scheme itself was held in abeyance but the petitioners did not perform the field work. Accordingly, the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3738 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: petitioners are not entitled to non-core benefits. After the decisions of the writ petitions and upon being relieved, the non-core benefits paid to the petitioners are being deducted and the said recoveries are, therefore, justified. In the reply, it is further stated that the Insurance Company subsequently took lenient view and it was decided that non-core benefits be dis-allowed to the voluntary retirement optees from 1.4.2003 till the date of their relieving but they be allowed normal grade increment and to restore decrements wherever made. Accordingly, the recovery of excess salary, difference of terminal dues like commutation of pension, arrears of pension, difference of gratuity difference of leave encashment and different of ex-gratia payment has already been made in the year 2009. As per the respondents, the recovery on account of non-core benefits, which were allowed between the period from 2003 to 2008 and were held in abeyance, have now been rightly deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioners. Prayer accordingly is made for dismissing the writ petition. I have heard counsel for the parties. As per counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners though had opted for voluntary retirement under the Scheme but they had continued to perform the duties as Development Officers in the field and, therefore, were rightly paid the non-core benefits. As already noticed by the Court, in Manoj Luthra's case (supra), the respondent-Company can effect recoveries only from such persons who had exercised their option for voluntary retirement and had been CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3738 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: serving as Development Officer (Administration) at the Head Offices, but still were paid non-core benefits. It is held that the recovery can not be effected from those persons who may have opted for voluntary retirement but had continued to work in the field despite exercise of option to work as Development Officer (Administration). The question that those working in the Head Offices were entitled to increment, was not examined, being hypothetical. The recovery orders were accordingly set-aside. Even in the present case, the counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to Annexure P-5 dated 11.6.2008 initiated by Divisional Manager to show that the petitioners, though were working as Development Officers but had been working in the field as per the details given in this communication. The Divisional Manager accordingly has stated that it would be appropriate to take into account the business of the agencies mentioned in the communication to the respective V.R.S optees Development Officers for calculation of their costs. This communication is sufficient to show that the petitioners had been working in the field and, thus, would be entitled to non-core benefits. The recovery, as effected, can not, therefore, be made. The writ petition is allowed. Recovery of non-core benefit, as ordered through Annexure P-6, is quashed. Deduction, if any made from the retiral benefits of the petitioners, be refunded to them. May 02,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE