S BABU Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein, who were employed with the first respondent/HTL, Guindy, while it was a Public Sector Organization, have come up with the present writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the Managing Director of R-1 Company to pay them the difference in the VRS amount based on the revised scale of basic pay and D.A. as per the Circular dated 12.7.2000 together with 9% per annum from the date of the Circular. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the first instance, highlighted the case of the petitioners thus,

(2.) So pointing out the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the grievance of the petitioners that though they were paid the difference in basic pay and D.A. as well as the difference in gratuity, P.F., privilege leave, notice pay, etc., unfortunately, difference on the VRS amount which became due consequent upon the pay revision was not paid to them. Handful of letters sent did not evoke any response and only after lawyer's notice dated 26.12.2001 followed by a reminder notice dated 25.5.2002, the first respondent replied that the petitioners would be apprised of the position immediately after receiving clarification from the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE). Ultimately, by reply dated 10.6.2002, emanated from the first respondent, it was informed that the petitioners are not entitled for the difference because there was no specific clause at the time of retirement for extending it in case of subsequent wage revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the first respondent failed to see that basic pay and D.A. were revised from 1.1.1997 and made applicable to persons like petitioners, therefore, denial of the difference on the VRS amount based on the revised scale of basic pay and D.A. is arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; that when, by Memorandum dated 8.12.2000 on the subject of VRS, R4 clarified that ex gratia will be recalculated on the basis of revised pay scale and difference paid, the action of the 1st respondent in denying the legitimate claim is superfluous and unjustifiable; that, in respect of employees who offered to go on VRS along with the petitioners as per the Circular dated 29.12.1998, the first respondent vide Circular dated 24.12.1999 stated that their VRS will be recalculated on the basis of revised pay, but, different treatment was given to the same category of employees merely because some were relieved earlier and others at later point of time; and that, at the time of disinvestment dated 16.10.2001, the Government of India under the Memorandum of Understanding had given the first respondent the difference of amount on account of recalculation of VRS as a liability and as the said amount being negligible from the point of view of the first respondent, he should not be heard to say that the Government of India has disinvested its share holding in the first respondent to the extent of 74% and retained only 26% of the share capital, therefore, no writ will lie against the present 'private management'.