IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3763 OF 2004 Between: T.K.Krishna, S/o.late T.S.Keshavulu Retired Senior Technical Officer, Electronics Corporation of India Limited, 12-13-325, Stree No.10, Tarnaka, Hyderabad-500 017. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Electronic Corporation of India Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad 500 062. 2 Shri M.Raja Rao, Senior Technical Officer, Code No.55372, Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Hyderabad-500 062. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to fix the basic pay of the petitioner at Rs.11,350/-(Rupees eleven thousand, three hundred and fifty only) per mensum on a part with the 2nd respondent with effect from 01.01.1997 with all the consequential benefits and arrears payable thereon. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.T.RAGHUNATH Counsel for the Respondent : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3763 OF 2004 O R D E R The petitioner seeks a direction to the Electronic Corporation of India Limited Hyderabad, (for brevity, ‘the ECIL’) to fix his basic pay on par with the second respondent w.e.f. 01.01.1997 with all consequential benefits and arrears. The petitioner claims to have entered into the service of the ECIL on 02.09.1969 and retired from service w.e.f. 16.08.2001 under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short, ‘the VRS’) floated by the ECIL. At the time of his retirement the petitioner was a Senior Technical Officer, having been promoted to the said post in September, 1995. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent herein was junior to him in the category of Senior Technical Officer, having been promoted in August, 1996, but upon the revision of the pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1997, the petitioner’s pay was erroneously fixed lower than the pay of the second respondent. The petitioner claims to have made a representation on 31.12.2003 to the ECIL in this regard and it is his complaint that no action has been taken thereupon. Accordingly, he filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the ECIL as aforestated. In its counter-affidavit, the ECIL stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Tradesman-B on 16.07.1969. He was removed from service thereafter on 31.08.1970 and failed in his endeavour to challenge the said removal. However, upon his representation, he was appointed as a Tradesman-C on 25.02.1976. Having availed the benefit of the VRS, the petitioner was retired from service w.e.f. 16.08.2001. The ECIL disputed the claim of the petitioner that he was drawing a higher pay than the second respondent. The main contention of the ECIL, however, as reflected in its counter, is that the petitioner had already retired from service and therefore, it was not open to him to claim any further benefits or litigate for monetary claims. Heard Sri T.Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri D.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the ECIL. Sri T.Raghunath, learned counsel, submitted that it was arbitrary on the part of the ECIL to deprive the petitioner of his rightful dues by declining to set right the anomaly in the fixation of his pay vis-a-vis the pay given to the second respondent. Sri D.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that after retiring from service by availing the benefit of the VRS, the petitioner could not turn around and ask for any monetary benefits basing on a cause of action which had arisen prior to his leaving the service of the ECIL. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K.BINDAL V/s. UNION OF INDIA[1]. In the said case, the Supreme Court observed that after applying for VRS and taking the benefits thereunder, the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and therefore, there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights with his erstwhile employer, including the making of any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. Reliance is also placed on the judgment dated 04.04.2007 of a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.26098 of 1997, wherein the learned Judge reiterated the principle that having taken voluntary retirement and received all the amounts consequent thereto, it is not open to an employee to turn around and file a writ petition seeking further benefits. It is also brought to my notice that the ECIL, vide its Personnel Circular No.1262/2003-03 dated 12.03.2003, curtailed the rectification of anomalies; and the cases of executives who had left its service due to superannuation/voluntary retirement/ resignation/termination on or after 01.01.1997 were not considered. In the light of the judgments aforestated, which squarely apply on all fours to the facts of the present case, and in the light of the policy decision of the ECIL as reflected in its Circular dated 12.03.2003, it is not open to the petitioner, having retired from the service of the ECIL on 16.08.2001, to maintain this writ petition seeking monetary benefits on the perceived anomaly in his past pay fixation vis-a-vis the second respondent. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on this short ground and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 25th SEPTEMBER, 2009 PGS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3763 OF 2004 25th SEPTEMBER, 2009 [1] 2003(5) ALT 23.1 (DN SC)