IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 5691 of 2009 Deepak Kumar Tandon, son of late Gyanchand Tandon, presently residing At RBHM Jute Mill quarters at Katihar, P O – Katihar-Mills, P S – Katihar, District – Katihar, working as Compounder, NJMC Unit – RBHM, Katihar - Petitioner Versus 1) The Union of India through Secretary, Textile Department, New Delhi 2) The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, New Delhi 3) The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Jute Manufactures Corporation Ltd (A Government of India Undertaking), Charted Bank Building, Second Floor, N S Road, Kolkata -1 4) Mr D K Ukil, father’s name not known, Assistant General Manager (Personnel), NJMC Ltd, Chartered Bank Building, Second Floor, N S Road, Kolkata -1 5) Mr D N Singh, father’s name not known, Acting Unit Head, NJMC Ltd, RBHM Unit, Katihar, P O – Katihar Mills, District - Katihar - Respondents *** For the petitioner : M/s Dhirendra Kr Jha & Jibendra Mishra, Advocates For the respondents : M/s Sushmita Mishra, Krishna Ballabha Sharma & Surya Narain Sah, Advocates *** 4 10.07.2009 The petitioner is a Class-III employee of National Jute Manufacturers Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking. The said Corporation having become sick, it offered, by its letter dated 03.11.2005 (Annexure-3), voluntary retirement to all employees. The terms therein were specifically enumerated. Clause 6 provided for notice pay as per service conditions. It also provided that the applications of employees would be considered and its acceptance or rejection would be communicated within 30 days of the receipt of application. Petitioner opted for VRS. Now the petitioner and others 2 have been noticed by notice dated 01.04.2009 (Annexure-4) that they would be deemed to be released under VRS with effect from 30.04.2009. In this notice, allegedly there are two objectionable parts which have brought the petitioner to this Court. One, though it is a notice in which petitioner is being relieved under VRS, he is not to be paid notice pay which was earlier one of the conditions of VRS. The second is with regard to arrears of salary. This notice states that those who accept VRS would separately receive 40% of arrears of salary towards full and final settlement of their dues in that regard upon signing of fresh agreement. Thus, arrears of salary would not be paid to those employees who are not opting for VRS. Petitioner’s grievance in this Court is that he is entitled to 100% of arrears of salary. By adding it to VRS speculations, the petitioner is now being put to unreasonable terms inasmuch as in case he presses for 100% of arrears of salary, he will have to give up VRS and fight the organization. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the NJMC Limited, it is stated that notice pay has become a misnomer. Notice pay is paid when an employee is suddenly discharged from service as was contemplated in the VRS settlement notice which was to be acted upon within 30 days. That was in 2005. We are in 2009. There is no sudden relieving. Therefore, it had become redundant moreso because petitioner was not being discharged but was being relieved under VRS with lot of money and monetary protections. To the second, it was submitted that a reference to VRS offer (Annexure-3) would show that it did not speak a single word with regard to entitlement of arrears of 3 salary. That was outside the purview of VRS settlement. By the present notice, it is a bonus being given to the employees accepting VRS that they would settle their claims for arrears of salary at 40%. It is submitted that in ordinary course of event, petitioner will not get any arrears of salary because of the financial condition of the Corporation what to talk of 40% and even if he would get anything, it would take a long time. Thus, as against an uncertainty of events, certainty is being offered. It is submitted that it is for the petitioner to accept or not the aforesaid and there is nothing arbitrary about it. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, in my view, the condition, as imposed in Annexure-4 being notice dated 01.04.2009 with regard to arrears of salary, is neither arbitrary nor capricious nor discriminatory. It is indeed a bonus to people accepting VRS. To put it crudely, it is – “A bird in hand is worth two in the bush”. VRS, admittedly, did not refer to arrears of salary. Here with certainty and immediately 40% of arrears of salary is being offered. It is up to the petitioner to accept the same or not. It is virtually a fresh offer by the Corporation as the earlier offer and acceptance by the petitioner was not acted upon within the mandate contained therein that is 30 days. Therefore, the challenge to this additional conditionality in the notice dated 01.04.2009 fails. In respect of notice pay also, the petitioner cannot succeed. Notice pay is normally granted when there is sudden disassociation of the relationship of employer and employee. That would have been relevant if VRS was acted within 30 days as per Annexure-3. It has taken almost 4 years and petitioner was at notice of 4 either being dismissed or being voluntary retired. He is getting substantial money and other financial protections. It is rightly submitted that notice pay has now a misnomer and a misfit in the situation. There is nothing unreasonable and arbitrary in this. Thus found, there is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)