IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 919 of 2004 Between: 1 M/s Hindustan Cables Limited (Government of India Undertaking), rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director, and another. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1. O. Muniswamy Reddy and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : . THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 919 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 11.11.2003 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.24197 of 2002. Respondents 1 to 38 are the petitioners in the above writ petition. They filed the above writ petition seeking grant of the payment of differential in pay in the revised pay scales and revised benefits under voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) under which they have taken voluntary retirement and ceased to be employees of the Hindustan Cables Limited (HCL), a Government of India undertaking by 31.3.2001. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Government of India approved a voluntary retirement scheme for public sector undertakings on 5.10.1998. As the said scheme is also applicable to the employees of HCL, the HCL called for applications from its employees for voluntary retirement. Many of the employees including all the writ petitioners submitted applications for availing voluntary retirement scheme with effect from 31.3.2001 incorporating certain conditions in their applications. Accepting the said offer, HCL permitted the writ petitioners to proceed on voluntary retirement and thus, the writ petitioners have been relieved from the service of the HCL, on 31.3.2001. Thereafter, the Government issued an office order dated 31.5.2001. As per Clause 8.3 of the office order, all executives who were on the rolls as on 1.1.1997 but subsequently ceased to be in service on account of superannuation, resignation, VRS, termination, death etc., would be eligible for the benefit of revised scale of pay up to the period they were in employment of the company. The writ petitioners, who retired under VRS, claim the benefit of the revised pay scale under the office order and also claim revision of the benefits due to them under the VRS package consequent on the revision of their pay scales and other benefits under the said office order. The learned Standing Counsel for HCL submitted before the learned single Judge that the entitlement of the writ petitioners to the pay revision, differential amount of VRS compensation and payment of arrears consequent on the office order, is conditional upon implementation of the pay revision benefits to the serving employees, on a true and fair construction of condition No.3 incorporated in the applications of the writ petitioners seeking voluntary retirement and that the HCL-company is in a very bad financial state and even the serving employees could not be paid their salaries. The learned single Judge having observed that as per the language employed in clause No.8.3 of the office order dated 31.5.2001, the writ petitioners are eligible and entitled to the benefit of the revised scales of pay upto 31.3.2001 and insofar as the petitioners’ entitlement to revised VRS compensation is concerned, the petitioners submitted an offer to opt for VRS benefits and the said offer, which contained a condition to the effect that as and when pay revision is implemented for serving officers, the benefits of such pay revision including differential amount of VRS compensation and payment of pay arrears along with the serving officers ought to be paid to each of them, was accepted and therefore, the acceptance of the offer must be construed as acceptance in terms of the offer and therefore, the writ petitioners are entitled to recalculation and payment of differential amounts of VRS compensation consequent on the implementation of the pay revision, allowed the writ petition declaring that the writ petitioners are entitled to payment of arrears of salary and other allowances to which they are entitled in the light of the provisions of the office order dated 31.5.2001 upto the period they were in employment of the Company i.e., 31.3.2001, notwithstanding that they ceased to be employees of the HCL with effect from 31.3.2001 on VRS terms. Aggrieved by the same, the HCL preferred the present appeal. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended before this Court that the revised scales of pay were not in existence when the voluntary retirement scheme was published and the terms and conditions of the scheme do not specify the benefit of the revised pay scales. It is further argued that cessation of employment under VRS, is a matter of contract and therefore, it is regulated only by the terms and conditions contained in the voluntary retirement scheme and as the terms and conditions of the VRS do not admit the component of revised pay scales, the writ petitioners are not entitled to differential amount. On a perusal of the material on record, it is obvious that the petitioners submitted their applications for availing voluntary retirement scheme incorporating certain conditions. Among them, conditions No.2 and 3 read as follows: “2. However, if the management extends, any benefits in addition to the above before 31.3.2001 to any section of employees of the company, the same must be extended to me also and the above amount must be paid to me after my retirement even if I am retired before 31.3.2001. 3. As and when Pay Revision is implemented for the serving officers, the benefits of pay revision like payment of differential amount of V.R. compensation and payment of pay arrears (along with serving officers) may be paid to me.” The above two conditions go to show that if the management extends any benefits before 31.3.2001 to any serving employees of the company, the same must be extended to the persons who intend to avail VRS and the differential amount must be paid to them, even though they retired before 31.3.2001. The said offer was accepted by the company and therefore, the writ petitioners proceeded on voluntary retirement scheme. Now, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the terms and conditions of the voluntary retirement scheme do not specify the benefit of the revised scales of pay. If that being the case, the HCL should have rejected the offer of the writ petitioners at the threshold viz., at the time of consideration of their applications for VRS. Having accepted the offer of the writ petitioners and permitted the writ petitioners to proceed on voluntary retirement scheme, now, the company cannot go behind to extend the benefits on some pretext or other. Further, the office order dated 31.5.2001 goes to show that all executives, who were on the rolls as on 1.1.1997 but subsequently ceased to be in services on account of superannuation, resignation, VRS, termination, death etc., would be eligible for the benefit of revised scales of pay upto the period they were in employment of the company. It would also make it clear that the writ petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the revised scales of pay upto 31.3.2001 as rightly observed by the learned single Judge. In view of the acceptance of the offer by the Company and in view of the language employed in the office order dated 31.5.2001, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of the learned single Judge needs no interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Dated: 5th November, 2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 919 of 2004 (Order of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 5th November, 2009