Partly allowed

Arup Kumar Das and 5 Ors. v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 May 2019WP(C)/2436/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging fairness of voluntary retirement scheme benefits for former employees of a closed public sector undertaking Assam Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., court directed relief for housing and medical allowances but rejected claims for pay revision and enhanced leave cash.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents No. 2 to 6 to release house rent allowance and medical allowance to petitioners; rejected claims for pay revision, enhanced leave, and notice period pay.

Arup Kumar Das and 5 Ors. Vs the Union of India and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/15

¶2

GAHC010006572013

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2436/2013

¶5

1:ARUP KUMAR DAS and 5 ORS

¶6

S/O LT. NABIN CHANDRA DAS R/O RODALI PATH PANJABARI, NEAR SBI, HOUSE NO. 12, GUWAHATI- 781037.

¶7

2: SRI NIREN GOGOI

¶8

S/O LT. NANDA NATH GOGOI HOUSE NO. 13 SHIVA NATH GOGOI PATH P.O. PANJABARI GUWAHATI-781037.

¶9

3: SRI JYOTISH CHANDRA DEKA S/O LT. CHANDI CHARAN DEKA HOUSE NO. 13 NAMGHAR PATH BYE LANE NO. 9 LACHIT NAGAR GUWAHATI- 781007.

¶10

4: SRI LAKSHHI KANTA DAS S/O LT. BRAJABASHI DAS HOUSE NO. 6 SHIVA RAM BORAH ROAD KHARGHULI GUWAHATI- 781004.

¶11

5: SRI HEMANTA CHANDRA DAS S/O LT. ANANDI RAM DAS R/O HOUSE NO. 43 BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 781028.

¶12

6: SRI PRAVATI KISHORE DEKA

¶13

S/O BELI RAM DEKA R/O VILL- SUBMAHALIA PARA KHOIRABARI DARRANG

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 6 ORS

¶16

Page No.# 2/15

¶17

REP. BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and CO-OPERATION, KRISHI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001.

¶18

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOV.T OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 6:THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT ASSAM KHANAPAA GUWAHATI-22.

¶19

7:THE ASSAM AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT KRISHI BHAWAN KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-7

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.I CHOUDHURY(SR.ADV)

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AGRI. DEPARTMENT

¶22

Linked Case : WP(C) 4254/2012

¶23

Page No.# 3/15

¶24

1:PROMOD CHETIA and 32 ORS SON OF LT. LAKHESWAR CHETIA C/O DHARMESWAR GOSWAMI R/O HOUSE NO. 1 BIR CHILARAI PATH JUNAKPUR BIRUBARI GOPINATH NAGAR GUWAHATI-16.

¶25

2: BIKRAM BAHADUR CHETRY S/O HEM BAHADUR CHETRY HOUSE NO. 49 RAJDHANI HOUSING COMPLEX NALINIBALADEVI PATH SRINAGAR P.O. DISPUR GUWAHATI-5.

¶26

3: ASHOK KR. DEKA S/O LT. KANADARPA DEKA R/O HOUSE NO. MIG-2 HOUSING BOARD COLONY DIPHU KARBIALONG P.O. and P.S. DIPHU-782460.

¶27

4: SANTI MUKTIAR S/O LATE PUTUL CH. MUKTIAR R/O VILL- HEMARBARI P.O. BHELENGURI P.S. SAMAGURI NAGARON- 782440.

¶28

5: HEMA KANTA SAIKIA S/O LATE SISHU RAM SAIKIA R/O VILL- HEMARBARI P.O. and P.S. SAMAGURI NAGAON- 782440. 6: RAMANI BORA S/O LT. P. LAHAN BORA R/O VILL- MARIKALANG BARGHAT P.O. PATHARI P.O. MARIKALONG NAGAON.

¶29

7: KAMALA KT. SARMAH S/O LT. ANIL SARMAH R/O VILL- UDMANI P.O. TANGABARI P.S. MANGALDOI DARRANG- 784525.

¶30

8: TARINI KANTA BORA S/O BHABA KANTA BORA R/O VILL- BARPATHAR P.O. BURHA SIPAJHAR

¶31

Page No.# 4/15

¶32

DIST. DARRANG PIN- 784148. 9: SUSHIL HAZARIKA S/O LATE RATNA HAZARIKA R/O VILL and P.O. BAGARIGURI DIST. NAGAON.

¶33

10: ANITA DAS S/O LT. ADITYA DAS R/O HOUSE NO. 80 A NIZARAPAR NEAR BHASKAR GAS AGENCY BIRUBARI GUWAHATI-16.

¶34

11: DINA NATH TALUKDAR S/O LT. UPEN TALUKDAR R/O VILL- MALIKUCHI P.O. and DIST. NALBARI. 12: NIVA DAS S/O LT. PROF. BALORAM DAS R/O HOUSE NO. 39 DINESH ROAD PANBAZAR P.O. and P.S. PANBAZAR GUWAHATI.

¶35

13: NANDA BABU SINGHA S/O LT. KANTI SINGHA R/O LTKHOLA MANIPURI PARA P.O. SILCHAR CACHAR-788001.

¶36

14: MOHITOSH DAS S/O LT. MOMORANJAN DAS R/O VILL- KANAKALASH P.O. BHANGA BAZAR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 15: SABYASASHI DUTTA PURKAYASTHA S/O LATE DURGAPADA DUTTA PURKAYASTHA R/O VILL- NAYA BARI P.O. TILLA BAZAR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 16: NARAYAN CH. MAITY S/O LT. DHANANJAY MAITY R/O TARA BHUSAN LANE DIST. KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710 ASSAM. 17: MUKTAR HUSSAIN

¶37

Page No.# 5/15

¶38

S/O LATE TAFAZUL HUSSAIN R/O VILL- MAHADEV TILLA P.O. and P.S. HAFLONG DIST. DIMA HASAO - 788819. 18: MAHBUBAR RAHMAN S/O LT. RAMJAN ALI R/O VILL- RANGIA SOULMARI P.O. and P.S. RANGIA WARD NO. 8 DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 19: LILA HAZARIKA S/O LT. TAPAN CHANDRA HAZARIKA R/O LATA KATA SANTI NAGAR P.O. and P.S. BASHISTHA GUWAHATI-29. 20: HEMANTA KR. BARDOLOI S/O LT. HARENDRA NATH BORDOLOI R/O VIL- BARVATA P.O. JORHAT 21: MONORANJAN DAS S/O LT. NANDA LAL DAS R/O HOUSE NO. 8 SANJOY PATH KALIMANDIR BUS STOPPAGE P.O. HENGERABARI PS. DISPUR GUWAHATI. 22: YAKUB ALI S/O LT. RAHMAN ALI R/O HOUSE O. 3 SIX MILE DHARANDHA P.O. KHANAPRA GUWAHATI-22. 23: NAUSHAD ALI S/O LT. NABI ALI R/O SIX MILE DHARANDHA P.O. KHANAPRA GUWAHATI-22 24: JADAV KALITA S/O LT. RAGHUNATH KALITA R/O VILL- BHALLA P.O. CHAKARHATI DIST. KAMRUP.

¶39

25: RANJIT PHUKAN S/O LT. KACHAB CHANDRA PHUKAN R/O NIZARAPARA P.O. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3.

¶40

Page No.# 6/15

¶41

26: ALAKANANDA BHATTACHARJEE S/O LATE M.K. BHATTACHARJEE R/O C/O D. BHATTACHARJEE 46/6/2- CHATTARJEE PARA LANE KADANTALA HOWRAH-1 WEST BENGAL. 27: GANGA SAGAR SINGH S/O LATE RANDRASH SINGH R/O JURIPAR PANCHAYAT OFFICE BACKSIDE P.O. PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37.

¶42

28: MD. IDRISH ALI SON OF LATE HABEJ ALI R/O VILL- KHAGJANI P.O. DALGAON DIST. DARRANG.

¶43

29: AMARENDRA SINGHA S/O LT. SONATOH SINGHA R/O HOUSE NO. 61 KAKURNAGAR SHIVNAGAR P.O. and P.S. NOONMATI GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶44

30: TILOK BORA S/O LT. DEBESWAR BORA R/O HOUSE NO. 46 VILL- PURNANAGAR SALBARI P.O. and P.S. NOONMATI GUWAHATI- 781020.

¶45

31: ABDUL HAKIM S/O ABDUL KDIR R/O VILL- BORKHABOL P.O. and P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MARIGAON ASSAM.

¶46

32: MADHUCHANDA BARUAH S/O LT. CHANARAM DAS R/O HOUSE NO. 20 C/O DEBA PRASAD TALUKDAR BAGHARBARI P.O. PANJABARI P.S. SATGAON GUWAHATI- 781037.

¶47

33: JUGAMBUDHI CHOUDHARY S/O LATE ASHUTOSH CHOUDHURY R/O KALI MAHANIR BARI ROAD P.O. KARIMGANJ PIN- 789710 ASSAM. VERSUS

¶48

Page No.# 7/15

¶49

1:THE UNION OF INDIA and ORS REP. BY THE DIRECTOR BURERAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY PUBLIC ENTERPRISES BHAVAN CGO COMPLEX BLOCK-14 LODI ROAD NEW DELHI-3. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 5:THE COMMISSIONR and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 6:THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT ASSAM KHANAPRA GUWAHATI-22. 7:THE ASSAM AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR RAM KRISHNA MISSION ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : C.G.C.

¶50

Page No.# 8/15

¶51

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶52

JUDGMENT

¶53

Date : 16-05-2019

¶54

Heard Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned Govt. Advocate and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing counsel for the Finance Department. None appears on call for the Union of India.

¶55

Similar facts and common issues arise for determination in both the writ petitions. Having heard them together, these two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. By filing these two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioners is that they were employees of Assam Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (‘AAIDC’ for short). The Govt. took a decision in the Cabinet Meeting to close down the said public sector undertaking and accordingly, a notice dated 26.09.2006 was issued. In the meantime, as per the guidelines for Public Enterprises Department of the Govt. of Assam the employees working under various non- viable Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs’ for short) were given two options to either opt for voluntary retirement scheme (‘VRS’ for short) for which a financial package was worked out or for their re-employment/ absorption in various State Govt. Departments. Accordingly, the petitioners opted for VRS. As per OM dated 01.09.2000, earned leave encashment for State Govt. employees was enhanced from 240 days to 300 days, i.e. 10 months. In the meanwhile, ex-gratia payment of 30 days were paid to two batches of the employees of AAIDC in the year 2003 and 2004. On 15.02.2006, the Public Enterprises Deptt. of the State Govt. formulated a policy pertaining to PSU’s facing closure which included the VRS package. An OM dated 15.05.2008 was also issued laying down the guidelines for payment of outstanding salary/ wages and ex gratia payment to the employees of PSU’s opting for VRS. It is projected that although the petitioners were retired from service on 31.08.2008 on VRS,

¶56

Page No.# 9/15

¶57

the following benefits were denied to the petitioners, viz., (i) The petitioners were not given House Rent Allowance (HRA for short) and Medical Allowance (MA for short), (ii) the petitioners were not given benefit of arrear salary in terms of Revision of Pay Rules, 2010 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 till their retirement on 31.08.2008 at par with other State Govt. employees, (iii) the petitioners were not given earned leave encashment for 2 months by giving them earned leave encashment for 8 months and not for 10 months, (iv) the petitioners were not given three month’s pay in lieu of notice period, and (v) the petitioners were paid ex-gratia for 15 days instead of 45 days.

¶58

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the AAIDC was jointly set up by the Govt. of India and the Govt. of Assam and in this regard, he had craved leave of this Court to refer and to rely on a copy of letter under D.O. No.2- 2/2005 My(AI) dated 01.09.2005 by the Ministry of Agriculture addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Assam expressing his surprise that the State Govt. had not consulted them before closure of AAIDC though the Govt. of India was 50% share-holders, further indicating that unless the shares held by the Govt. of India were not transferred to the State Government, the unilateral decision of the Govt. of Assam to close AAIDC may not be justified, further indicating therein that where Govt. of India was a major share-holder, the proposal for winding up the AAIDC would need formal concurrence of the Govt. of India. It is submitted that he was instructed about the said letter only today.

¶59

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners were retired from service as on 31.08.2008, and that all throughout the petitioners were getting benefits of Revision of Pay (RoP for short) in force from time to time, as such the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of RoP, 2010 which came into effect on and from 01.01.2006. Similarly, it is urged that the entitlement of the petitioners to earned leave encashment was covered by notification dated 01.09.2000. In this regard, he places reliance on the case of All Assam Statfed Karmachari Aikya Manch & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2014 (1) GLT 658: (2014) 2 NEJ 4: (2014) 5 GLR 69. It is submitted that the petitioners were in no position to bargain and they had to accept whatever that was offered, otherwise the petitioners who were desperate and serving without getting timely salary for months together

¶60

Page No.# 10/15

¶61

would not have received any money from the Government. By referring to the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguli, (1986) 3 SCC 156, followed by this Court in the case of Usha Rani Goswami Vs. The State of Assam & Ors., 2011 (2) GLT 51: (2011) 2 NEJ 285: (2011) 4 GLR 392: 2011 (2) GLJ 490, it is submitted that accrued right cannot be taken away. It is further submitted that entitlement of (i) earned leave encashment, (ii) payment in lieu of notice period covered by FR 56 (6), being 3 month’s pay in lieu of notice, which was covered by Receipt- Cum- Undertaking for availing VRS cannot be overridden by executive instructions and cannot be taken away retrospectively. In this regard, the case of (i) J.S. Yadav Vs. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 570, and (ii) Union of India Vs. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, (1994) 5 SCC 450 were referred to.

¶62

The learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department has submitted that in course of time, the Govt. of Assam had purchased the entire share-holding of the Union of India and, as such, the AAIDC was a State Government Undertaking, but that did not make the petitioners a Government servant. By referring to the case of A.K. Bindal & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 163, he has submitted that once the VRS Scheme had been accepted by majority of the employees of the erstwhile AAIDC, the petitioners cannot re-agitate their claim for pay revision. It is further submitted that as per the Government notification under Memo No. AGA.8/2000/Pt/86 dated 26.09.2006, the AAIDC was closed w.e.f. 31.08.2006. Therefore, merely because the petitioners were given salary upto 31.08.2008, it would not entitle the petitioners to claim benefit of RoP, 2010 w.e.f. 01.01.2006, not being the part of VRS. It is submitted that VRS policy dated 15.02.2006 as well as OM dated 15.05.2008 had not been challenged by the petitioners. It is further submitted that in para-4 of the Affidavit- in- opposition filed by the Finance Department in W.P.(C) No. 4254/2012, the specific stand of the Finance Department was that notification dated 15.02.2006 regarding VRS policy formulated for State Level Public Enterprise employees had clearly indicated that employees opting for VRS were entitled for unpaid salary which only included basic pay and dearness allowance and that there was no indication about HR and MA. It is further submitted that in para-7 of the same affidavit- in- opposition, it was stated that employees opting for VRS were only entitled to ex-gratia of 15 day’s basic pay and dearness allowance only and that as the petitioners were not employees of Govt. of

¶63

Page No.# 11/15

¶64

India, they were not entitled to benefits which was extended by Govt. of India for their PSU employees. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in these two writ petitions.

¶65

The learned State counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4 and 6 have submitted written notes of argument on 02.05.2019 as permitted vide order dated 25.04.2019, which is taken on record. The stand of the said State respondents is similar to the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the Finance Department. Reliance is placed on the case of Officers & Supervisors of I.P.D.L. Vs. Chairman And Managing Director, I.P.D.L., (2003) 6 SCC 490.

¶66

It is seen that this Court, in the case of All Assam Statfed Karmachari Aikya Manch (supra), had referred to letter No. P.E.114/2009/203 dated 31.10.2009 by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Enterprise Department, addressed to the Principal Secretary/ Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Cooperation/ Public Works/ Agriculture/ Industries & Commerce Department on the subject of VRS of the employees of closed PSU’s, where four PSU’s were referred to, viz., (1) Assam State Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. (STATFED), (2) Assam Government Construction Corporation Ltd., (AGCC), (3) Assam Agro Industries Development Corporation (AAIDC), (4) Assam Conductors & Tubes Ltd. (ASCON). After examining the matter in its entirety, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to release HRA and MA and City Compensatory Allowance to the members of the petitioner association. However, in this case, the claim of the petitioners is limited to House Rent Allowance (HRA) and Medical Allowance (MA), as such, in view of the decision of this Court in the above referred case of All Assam Statfed Karmachari Aikya Manch (supra), the respondents No.2 to 6 are directed to release the House Rent Allowance (HRA) and Medical Allowance (MA) to the petitioners.

¶67

The petitioners have also made a claim for (i) benefit under RoP Rules, 2010, (ii) earned leave encashment, and (iii) salary in lieu of 3 month’s notice. The said issue is taken up now.

¶68

Page No.# 12/15

¶69

In the said regard, the relevant documents annexed to these two writ petitions have been examined. The notification dated 26.09.2006 clearly lays down that the AAIDC was closed w.e.f. 31.08.2006. The contents of OM dated 15.05.2008 shows that the VRS package was contested by various employees/ workers Association/ Unions and in view of the same, the Asian Development Bank Mission in the last meeting had insisted that the State Government is to issue guidelines for payment of VRS package and accordingly, vide the said OM, guidelines were issued.

¶70

There remains no doubt that vide notification dated 24.08.2012, the Finance (Pay Research Unit) Department of the Govt. of Assam had permitted Board of Directors of State Level Public Enterprise to decide and adopt the provisions regarding revision of pay/ pay scales, allowances and payment of arrear pay as per Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 read with Notification dated 19.02.2011 after determining the detailed financial involvement regarding pay revision, further requiring that the pay revision was to be allowed with the approval of the concerned Administrative Department only after the Board of Directors agree that the concerned SLPEs has adequate financial resources to meet the expenditure for paying the revised pay, revised allowances or the arrear pay. However, in this case, perhaps since the AAIDC was closed w.e.f. 31.08.2006, no document is available on record to show that the Board of Directors of AAIDC still existed as on the date of notification dated 24.08.2012 and that the Board of Directors of AAIDC had adopted a resolution to adopt the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 and that they had the resources to meet the expenditure for paying the revised pay, revised allowances or the arrear pay to its employees. There is also no document on record to show that the respective Administrative Department of AAIDC had approved such resolution. Under such circumstances, the petitioners, who are the employees of erstwhile AAIDC cannot be treated to be Government employees so as to hold them to be entitled to revised pay, revised allowances and the arrear pay in terms of Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 read with Notification dated 19.02.2011.

¶71

It appears from the OM dated 01.09.2000 that the Govt. of Assam had decided that the existing provisions of Rule 9(1)(b) and 12(d) of the State Revised Leave Rules, 1934 be revised to the effect that existing maximum limit of 240 days on accumulation

¶72

Page No.# 13/15

¶73

of earned leave provided under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Revised Leave Rules, 1934 shall be enhanced to 300 days. In this regard, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners had laid emphasis on the VRS conditions as contained in OM dated 05.10.1988, which according to him, inter-alia, entitles the petitioners to cash equivalent of accumulated earned leave as per rules of the enterprise, and one month’s or/ three month’s notice pay (as per the conditions of service applicable to him). However, it is seen that the Conditions of Service of the petitioners is not available on record. But, from Annexure-A to the writ petition, it appears that in supersession of the previous notification dated 20.09.2004, the Govt. of Assam had issued notification dated 15.02.2006 regarding Revised Policy on Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the Employees of the State Level Public Enterprises of Assam. Thus, this Court is unable to hold that the OM dated 05.10.1988 could be said to be in force. As per the Notification dated 15.02.2006, the following package for VRS is envisaged:-

¶74

a. Ex- gratia of 15 days pay (Basis pay + Dearness Allowance) only against each completed year of service rendered on for the months of service rendered on for the months of service left, whichever is less.

¶75

b. Cash payment for unutilized leave for a maximum period of 240 days (Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance only).

¶76

c. Balance of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) dues payable as per Regulation of CPF.

¶77

d. Gratuity as per Gratuity Act.

¶78

e. Unpaid salary/ wages (Basic Pay + Dearness Allowance) upto the date of acceptance of VRS by the employees.

¶79

f. Savings of Group Insurance Scheme.

¶80

Moreover, it is also provided that in all calculations of VRS benefits, the basic pay and rate of dearness allowance would be taken as on the date of application by an employee opting for VRS and the date of closure of SLPE, whichever applicable. It was also provided that no request for any revision shall be entertained thereafter.

¶81

Page No.# 14/15

¶82

It is seen that the said notification dated 15.02.2006 regarding Revised Policy on Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the Employees of the State Level Public Enterprises of Assam has not been challenged in these two writ petitions. In the absence of any challenge thereto, this Court is unable to accept that the terms of the said VRS were unconscionable and that the petitioners were compelled to accept the VRS proposal as they were unable to fight the might of the State. Hence, this Court does not find the petitioners to be entitled to earned leave encashment for 300 days instead of 240 days as offered to the petitioners. In absence of any materials available on record, this Court does has no materials to hold that FR 56(6) was applicable on the petitioners and, as such, this Court does not find the petitioners to be entitled to release of 3 month’s salary in lieu of notice.

¶83

Thus, the ratio laid down in the cases of (i) Brojo Nath Ganguli (supra), (ii) Usha Rani Goswami (supra), (iii) J.S. Yadav (supra), and (iv) Tushar Ranjan Mohanty (supra) has no application in this case because as per the ratio laid down in the case of (a) A.K. Bindal (supra), and (b) Officers & Supervisors of I.D.P.L. (supra), the petitioners cannot be held to be Government employees and therefore, the notification of VRS cannot be said to have curtailed any right accrued or vested upon the petitioners.

¶84

Therefore, as indicated herein before, it is reiterated that in view of the decision of this Court in the above referred case of All Assam Statfed Karmachari Aikya Manch (supra), the respondents No.2 to 6 are directed to release the House Rent Allowance (HRA) and Medical Allowance (MA) to the petitioners. These two writ petitions stand partly allowed only to the aforesaid extent.

¶85

The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of the aforesaid directions. Ordered accordingly. No cost.

¶86

JUDGE

¶87

Page No.# 15/15

¶88

Comparing Assistant

Arup Kumar Das and 5 Ors. v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arup Kumar Das and 5 Ors. v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Queen Devi Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Shahjahan Ali Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Bimal Payeng Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Giridhar Barman and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Biralal Doley Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Md. Fayzul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.