J HINDUSTAN MACHINES TOOLS LTD. AND ANR. versus M.S. KANG/P.N. KASHYAP

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 27-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

:1-, 
·-~ -r 
HINDUSTAN MACHINES TOOLS LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
M.S. KANG/P.N. KASHYAP 
-.. 
JANUARY 27, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
B 
J 
'r 
Service Law : 
Voluntary retiremenf--Company-Hindustan Machine Tools-Special 
Scheme fonnulated for voluntary retirement of employee-Respondents ac- c 
cepted the scheme and retired thereunder-Thereafter Company issued office 
order 45/90 dated March 1, 1991-Revision of pay scales thereunder-Claim 
for revision of pay by re;pondents-Writ allowed by High Court-Appeal 
before Supreme Court-Held there was distinction between employees who 
voluntarily retired under Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules and those 
who retired under the Special Scheme-Respondents having retired under the D 
Special Scheme are not employees covered under the voluntary retirement 
under Rule 24.2 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules-Accordingly, 
the High Court was not right in directing recomputation of the compensation 
under Office Order No. 45 dated March, 1, 1991. 
i 
Prantiya Vidhyut Manda! Mazdoor Federation & Ors. v. Rajasthan E 
State Electricity Board & Ors., [1992] 2 SCC 723, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 626 of 
1997 Etc. 
-I 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.96 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court L.P.A. No. 2 of 1996. 
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, 0.C. Mathur and Ms. 
Meera Mathur for the Appellants. 
Manoj Swarup for the Respondent in C.A. No. 627/97 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
,-
"" 
Leave granted. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the High H 
569 
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997]1 S.C.R. 
A 
Court of Punjab&. Haryana, made on 19.4.1996 in LPA Nos. 2 and 3 of 
1996. 
B 
The admitted facts are that the appellants have formulated a Scheme 
for voluntary retirement of the employees who have completed 45 years of 
age, effective from April, 1989 for a period of three months subject to the 
conditions specified in the scheme. The respondents had accepted the 
scheme and retired thereunder. Thereafter by Office Order No. 45/90 
dated March 1, 1991 pay scales were revised in respect· of existing 
employees and those who retired from time to time. In furtherance thereof, 
the respondents claimed and revision of the scale of pay was sought to be 
C given effect by the office by the audit objection to the payment thereof was 
raised. Consequently, the respondents filed the writ petitioners in the High , 
Court and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and appeals 
were dismissed. Thus, these appeals by special leave. 
D 
Shri V. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, contends that 
the Scheme is a special scheme containing the mode of payment of com-
pensation as calculated in terms of the Scheme. There is a distinction 
between those employees who retired voluntarily under Conduct Discipline 
and Appeal Rules and those who retired under the Scheme. The revised 
scales of pay are applicable to those persons who are enumerated in Clause 
E 2.2.2 of the office orders providing for Revision of Pay Scales. Proceedings 
Dated March 1, 1991 refers to the candidates who retired voluntarily. 
Under Rule 24.2. of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, the 
revision of the Provident Fund would be effected only in respect of those 
employees who retired under the special scheme; the scale and gratuity 
F 
have to be revised in terms of the revised scales of pay but not the payment 
of the difference of pay. On the other hand, Shri Manoj Swamp, learned 
counsel for the respondents, contends that no distinction had been draw 
in the proceedings dated March 1, 1991 between the employees who retired 
under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules or under the Special 
Scheme and those who retired voluntarily under the Scheme and are 
G entitled to the same benefit of the revision of the pay scales as con-
templated under the Office Order dated March 1, 199.1. He also contends 
that even clause 2.3 negatively puts that they are disentitled to the payment. 
The word 'salary' is linked to the other component, namely, additional 
dearness allowance, ad hoc pay, additional pay etc. Therefore, the word 
H 'pay' would include revised pay. Thereby the respondents are entitled to 
• 
I 
HINDUSfANMACHINES TOOLS LTD. v. M.S. KANG/P.N. KASHYAP 
571 
the benefit of the revised pay scales. 
In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court 
in Prantiya 

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