MOHAN DAKUA Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to Mr. Sanganeria, learned counsel for the Petitioners in all these Writ Petitioners, the petitioners are neither litigants, nor litigation is their hobby, but then the arbitrary action of the opposite party management has thrust litigations upon them which they are bound to prosecute willy nilly by approaching the portals of this Court.

(2.) TO make the long story short, the petitioners are the erstwhile employees of the Steel Authority of India Limited (for short 'SAIL'), a Government of India Public Sector Undertaking, and were serving at the Rourkela Steel Plant at Rourkela. They opted for retirement in consonance with the Voluntary Retirement Schedule (for short 'VRS') along with more than six hundred other employees. The VRS stipulated certain benefits under Clause 4. The relevant portion of the said Clause is quoted hereinbelow for better appreciation :

(3.) RELYING upon the aforesaid two Clauses, Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party management, forcefully submitted that in consonance with the Agreement, notional revision of scales of pay was made from 1.1.1997. Therefore, the employees like the petitioners who had opted for retirement under VRS are not entitled to any benefit. It is further submitted that the actual financial benefit in terms of the Agreement would be effective from 1.1.2001 only.