The Special Appeal by the employer was dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's view that Voluntary Retirement Scheme benefits were legally binding on the employer due to the completed application and irrevocable nature of the scheme.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1479 of 2005
Appellant :- Chairman/ Managing Director, Indian Telephone Industries Limited and others Respondent :- Smt. Basanti Devi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Mukerji,H.P.Dube Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,A.K. Trivedi,Hanuman Prasad Dube,K.C. Sinha
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
2
28.11.2003 and therefore, occasion of his relieving did not arise. I.T.I., who was the employer of deceased employee, thereafter, denied benefit under the scheme of V.R.S. to petitioner, who is legal heir and representative of deceased employee on the ground that V.R.S. could not be acted upon since petitioner's husband was not relieved on 30.11.2003, which is part of Scheme. Claim of benefit was rejected vide order dated 20.02.2004.
3
“6. Having regard to the respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is: whether the respondent acquired a vested right after acceptance of the voluntary retirement by proceedings dated December 20, 1994? It is seen that the order is a conditional order in that until the dues are paid, the order does not become effective. The respondent himself admitted that the outstanding dues could be adjusted from the amount payable to him. Admittedly, no such adjustment has been made. He, therefore, rightly understood that unless he is relieved of the duties of the post, after the payment of the outstanding dues, the order accepting his voluntary retirement does not become effective .
7. It is now settled legal position that unless the employee is relieved of the duly, after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation, jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come to an end. Since the order accepting the voluntary retirement was a conditional one, the conditions ought to have been complied with. Before the conditions could be complied with, the appellant withdrew the scheme . Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not become effective. Thereby no vested right has been created in favour of the respondent. The High Court, therefore, was not right in holding that the respondent has acquired a vested right and, therefore, the appellant has no right to withdraw the scheme subsequently. ” (Emphasis added) 8. In the above judgment, it is evident that V.R.S. was accepted by observing that outstanding dues could be adjusted from the amount payable to employee but no adjustment was made. Court observed that employee rightly get impression that unless he is relieved from the duties of the post after payment of outstanding dues, the order accepting his V.R.S. would not become effective. Court also held that since order accepting V.R.S. was conditional one, conditions ought to have been complied with and before such conditions could be complied with, employer withdrew the Scheme. Therefore, above judgment stands on different facts, which are not applicable in the present case.
4
Order Date :- 23.5.2019 KA
Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1479 of 2005
Appellant :- Chairman/ Managing Director, Indian Telephone Industries Limited and others Respondent :- Smt. Basanti Devi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Mukerji, H.P.Dube Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,A.K. Trivedi,Hanuman Prasad Dube,K.C. Sinha
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Civil Misc. Recall Application No.253258 of 2017
Order Date :- 23.5.2019 KA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Voluntary Retirement Scheme benefits are due to the legal heir of an employee who opted for VRS and died before the scheduled relieving date.
Whether the death of the employee terminated the irrevocable contract of voluntary retirement before conditions were contingent upon.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Power Finance Corporation Ltd. vs. Pramod Kumar BhatiaDistinguished¶13
(1997) 4 SCC 280 · Who else cites this
Chairman/ Managing Director, Indian Telephone Industries Limited
Smt. Basanti Devi
Sudhir Agarwal
Virendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
