IFCI LTD versus SANJAY BEHARI & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 17-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
569
IFCI LTD
v.
SANJAY BEHARI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6995 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Service law: Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Benefit of – On
facts, few employees of IFCI availed the benefit under the VRS-
2008 – Said ex-employees seeking entitlement to enhanced pension
on the basis of subsequent revision of pay-scales, which was given
from the time period when they were still employees of the IFCI –
Writ petition by ex-employee dismissed by the Single Judge of the
High Court – However, said order set aside by the Division Bench –
On appeal, held: Any scheme for voluntary retirement is a package
by itself – One cannot, look to other voluntary retirement schemes,
or other rules and regulations for the said purpose – If the RBI
pay-scales had been adopted by IFCI with retrospective effect, the
ex-employees could never have had a claim as their chapter was
closed – Merely because, for existing employees, RBI pay-scales
had been applied, albeit retrospectively, without past benefits, that
cannot be a ground to start getting pension on the basis of a
calculation based on those revised pay-scales – Seeking benefits
other than the VRS scheme is misadventure and thus, is rejected –
IFCI Staff Regulations, 1974 – Regulation 33.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A reading of the clauses of the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme 2008 shows that the Scheme envisaged a
full and final settlement of all claims, making it clear that benefits
under earlier Schemes would not be applicable. However, pension
under IFCI Pension Regulations was to be applicable. It has been
specifically provided in clause 9.12 that there would be no revision
in the voluntary retirement amount on account of pay revision or
any other account in future. This clause was specifically absent in
the 2001 Scheme, but pay revision was subsequently made
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 569
569
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
applicable vide Circular dated 4.1.2001. The endeavour to apply
that Circular in the 2003-2004 VRS was not successful. It appears
that in order to avoid any further ambiguity on this account, this
clause was inserted. [Para 13] [579-G-H; 580-A-B]
1.2 Any scheme for voluntary retirement is a package by
itself.  One cannot, thus, look to other voluntary retirement
schemes, or other rules and regulations for the said purpose.
There can be no quibble with this fundamental principle. It is not
appropriate to add or subtract from the Scheme, nor can any
concessions be given contrary to the Scheme, or if they are not
provided for under the Scheme. What is to be seen are the clauses
of the scheme under which voluntary retirement has been taken
and the terms of the scheme must be strictly followed. [Para 21,22]
[582-G-H; 583-A-B]
National Insurance Special Voluntary Retired/Retired
Employees Association & Anr. v. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2018) 18 SCC 186 – relied on.
1.3 The very rationale of introducing a scheme for voluntary
retirement, i.e., to reduce surplus staff and to bring in financial
efficiency. It is referred to as the ‘Golden Handshake’. Ex gratia
amounts are paid, not for doing any work or rendering any service,
but in lieu of employees leaving services of the company and
foregoing any further claims or rights in the same. It is optional,
not compulsory. It is  take it or leave it situation. Thus, anyone
availing of a VRS does so with his eyes wide open. On having
availed of the benefits under the scheme, if there are future
changes, which may give any of the monetary benefits, the same
cannot be read into the scheme. This would defeat the very
purpose of having a VRS, i.e., to bring in financial efficiency, as it
would not be possible that despite having paid the amounts, the
organization can be lumped with further financial liability arising
from re-thoughts by such persons, who have already availed of
the VRS. The VRS cannot be frustrated in this manner. [Para 24]
[584-B-E]
A.K. Bindal v. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 163 : [2003]
3 SCR 928 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
571
1.4 The benefits under VRS-2008 are many, in terms of the
financial package. Pension is only one of the items of that package,
while calculating the amounts as per clause 7.2 of the Scheme.
There is no ambiguity left by the propounders of the Scheme
while setting out the prohibitive clause against any further
compensation, in clause 9.4, or while stating that no revision shall
be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.