IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 9835 of 2008(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- T.M.JOHN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, THARAYIL HOUSE, K.D.P. (PO), SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, H.M.T. - 4, KALAMASSERY. 2. THE ASST.GENERAL MANAGER (HR), H.M.T. - 4, KALAMASSERY. ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) FOR R1 & 2 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9835/2008 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 31/10/07. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD. 23/01/08. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DTD. 07/02/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME. EXT.R1(B): COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 15/10/2007 AND DETAILS OF CALCULATION OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS PAID TO THE PETITIONER AND OTHER DETAILS. EXT.R1(C): COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.5/96 DTD. 30/08/1996 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.9835 of 2008-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The question is whether a person who has availed of the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme and has got the benefit as a one time measure, can re-agitate the claim for retirement benefits which according to him, was due. 2. The petitioner joined the first respondent company on 7.4.1981 as Time Recorder in the grade WG II. He obtained subsequent promotions and finally he was promoted as Work Supervisor Grade I on 1.7.2000. The petitioner availed the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme and retired from service on 31.10.2007. The entire amounts were received by him by cheque No.672662 dated 31.12.2007. After receiving the amount, by Ext.P2 lawyer notice, the petitioner demanded payment of special increment due to him from July 2007. Ext.P3 is the reply to the said notice. The company denied the liability to pay any amount further. Aggrieved by the non-payment of the amount, he has filed this writ petition. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Ext.R1(a) is the scheme under which the benefit was granted WPC 9835/2008 2 to the petitioner. Ext.R1(b) is the application dated 15.10.2007 submitted by the petitioner. The stand taken is that an amount of Rs.11,02,983/- was received by him under the scheme which is a one time payment. At that time, no complaint was raised regarding the salary that was being received by him. Therefore, the payment that was effected was based on the admitted salary which was being disbursed from time to time. It is also pointed out that the grant of increment on completion of every seven years is not automatic. Every year the workmen who have completed seven years will be considered for the special increment twice and those who fulfill the eligibility criteria alone will be given special increment. The employee's merit will be assessed by his immediate superior and merit ratings will be prepared. In respect of the direct workmen who are working in machines, merit rating will be prepared based on the standard hours. In respect of indirect workmen like the petitioner who are not working in machines, merit rating will be prepared based on their job knowledge, mental ability, attitude, general disposition, efficiency and leadership. The merit ratings thus prepared in the case of the indirect workmen will be reviewed by the Head of the Department at the time of selection of eligible employees for giving special increment. There are other conditions also which are to be satisfied. The process of selection of the candidates who have completed WPC 9835/2008 3 seven years as on July 2007 for grant of increment was made only during December 2007. As the petitioner had retired on VRS on 31.10.2007, he was not considered. It is also pointed out that if the petitioner wanted the benefit of special increment, he could have waited till December 2007 and applied for VRS next year. It is in these circumstances that the respondents contend that the claim now raised is an after thought and cannot be legally sustained. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputed these averments contending that going by Ext.R1(c), in his case the said conditions have been satisfied. A reading of Ext.R1(c) shows that the special increment could be granted subject to fulfillment of certain eligibility criteria which have been described in the said order. It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the stipulations made in Ext.R1(c) will not apply in the case of persons who are working in machines and the persons who are working in the category like the petitioner, i.e. indirect workmen, the scheme as described in the counter affidavit will apply. The question whether persons availing of benefits under the voluntary retirement scheme, are entitled for other benefits which were due to them and can claim them after their retirement, has been explained by the Apex Court in A.K. Bindal and another v. Union of India and others {(2003) 5 WPC 9835/2008 4 SCC 163). After considering the matter in detail, it was held in para 34 thus: “The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in the business world it is known as “golden handshake. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. If the employee is still permitted to raise a grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale from a retrospective date, even after he has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount paid to him, the whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be totally frustrated” Going by the above dictum, the claim raised by the petitioner herein cannot be accepted. But, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unlike in a case of revision of wages, here what is claimed is an amount that was due to him during the period he was in service. The contentions raised by the petitioner will not show that such a claim was raised at any time prior to the WPC 9835/2008 5 receipt of payments. Even, if that was raised, the payment depended on fulfillment of certain criteria. Therefore, the amount that was arrived at finally by the respondents was accepted by him without any demur. That means, the claim now raised is an after thought. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that respondents are not liable to reopen the matter and find out whether the claim of the petitioner was eligible to be assessed at this distance of time for payment of the special increment. Hence, the said claim does not survive. The original petition is therefore dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/