A K TANDON Vs. LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners 1 and 2, who were working as Deputy Managers (Finance & Accounts), Petitioner No. 3 as Personnel Assistant and Petitioner No. 4 as Senior Assistant (RB) with the Indian Road Construction Corporation Ltd. (`IRCC'), Respondent No. 2, a Government of India enterprise, challenge the decision dated 31st January 2002 of the IRCC, rejecting their representation for release of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (`VRS') compensation. THE ground for rejection was that they had been relieved from the IRCC to join the National Highways Authority of India (`NHAI') even prior to their opting for the VRS.

(2.) BY a circular dated 28th/31st March 2000, the IRCC conveyed to its employees a decision of the Government of India (`GoI') to wind up the IRCC. It was conveyed that the GoI had encouraged the employees to opt for the VRS failing which they would be entitled for compensation on closure in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (`ID Act'). This was followed by the circular dated 31st May 2000 in which it was stated that Board of Directors of IRCC at a meeting held on 22nd May 2000 had directed that the all officers and staff should be advised to opt for VRS on or before 30th June 2000. The salient features of the VRS Scheme were enclosed with this circular. The Petitioners state that pursuant to the above circular they applied for VRS along with other employees. On 3rd July 2000, an Office Order was issued stating that all the applications for VRS which had been received upto 30th June 2000 "have been accepted". It is stated that the different dates on which the different officers and staff members are to be relieved would be "verified separately in due course".

(3.) ON 6th November 2001, an Office Memorandum (`OM') was issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises (`DPE'), GoI modifying the revised VRS for Central Public Sector Undertakings (`PSUs'), announced by the OM dated 5th May 2000. Clause (d) of the said OM stated that "once an employee avails himself of voluntary retirement from a PSU, he shall not be allowed to take up employment in another PSU. If he desires to do so, he shall have to return the VRS compensation received by him to the PSU concerned." Para 4 stated that the employees, who had been relieved from the PSUs before the date of issue of the O.M., would not be covered by the modified scheme. The Petitioner contended that the OM dated 6th November 2001 was obviously prospective and could not be invoked to deprive the Petitioners of their VRS compensation. After the further representation of the Petitioners dated 15th January 2002 was rejected by the Manager (Civil/Pers.) IRCC on 31st January 2002, the present writ petition was filed.