LexMANOJBHAI N. SHAH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 611 MANOJBHAI N. SHAH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Transfer Case (Civil) No. 48 of 2010) JANUARY 07, 2015 [ANIL R. DAVE AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Service Law: Retirement - Voluntary Retirement Scheme A B - Whether after acceptance of voluntary retirement under the 2004 Scheme, such retired employees would be entitled to C get benefit of the revision of pay which was retrospectively given from 1st August 2002 by Notification dated 21.12.2005 - Held: VRS Scheme 2004 was framed by employer to reduce burden of salary and establishment expenditure - Employees who opted under the Scheme retired upon taking o some special additional benefits - If benefit of revision of pay scale is given to person who had already opted under the Scheme and had retired, the real purpose with which the Scheme was framed would be frustrated - Therefore, employees who had opted for retirement under the Scheme E would not be entitled to additional pension upon revision of pay effected under Notification dated 21.12.2005. Disposing of the Transfer cases and the Special Leave Petition, the Court HELD: 1. There is no doubt that the Scheme was framed by the Employers to see that their expenditure in long term is decreased by making one-time payment of additional amount to the employees opting for retirement F , under the Scheme. With this intention, the employers had floated the. Scheme and several employees of the G Employers had taken due advantage of the Scheme by opting under the Scheme and by taking not only ex gratia payment of salary but also additional pension, which 611 H 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A they would not have received otherwise. The employees opting for retirement under the Scheme were to get benefit of additional five years of service while calculating the pension. The said benefit was substantial and the said benefit along with benefit of ex gratia payment, tempted B number of employees who opted under the Scheme and retired happily after getting all retiral benefits. [Para 34] [623-H; 624-A-D] 2. According to clause 5(2) of the Scheme, ex gratia amount was to be paid to the concerned employees on C the date of his/her being relieved and it was clarified that in case of wage revision effected from a date prior to the date on which the said Scheme had been notified in the Official Gazette, the benefit of revised pay for the purpose of payment of ex gratia would be allowed. Meaning D thereby, the employees who had opted under the Scheme and retired from service were entitled only to revision of ex gratia amount upon retrospective increase in the salary. The intention was to give benefit only in relation to ex gratia amount and not in relation to the E pension. Had the intention been to give benefit of additional pension also, the said fact would have been incorporated in the said clause. In normal circumstances when an employee retires from service, his relationship with the employer comes to an end. It is also a well F settled legal position that after retirement, normally no disciplinary action can be initiated against the concerned employee. Similarly, the retired employee would not have any right of redetermination of his pension but only in cases where salary is revised with retrospective effect, G the retired employee gets the benefit of additional . pension and that too in certain cases. In the instant case, it is crystal clear that the employees had already opted under the Scheme -under a specially made Scheme, which was framed only with an intention to reduce future expenditure of the Employers. If all these benefits are H given to the persons who had already opted under the MANOJBHAI N. SHAH v. UNION OF INDIA 613 Scheme and had retired, the real purpose with which the A Scheme had been framed would be frustrated. [Paras 36, 37] [624-F-H; 625-A-E] 3. The employees who retired under the Scheme form a separate class of employees who were given many benefits, which are not given to employees retiring in B normal course. If they all form a separate class, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that all those who retired under the Scheme and those who retired in normal course, are similarly situated. Thus, in our opinion, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in C the instant case. Similarly, there is no violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.