HINDUSTAN MACHINES TOOLS LTD Vs. M S KANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 2 of 1996 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 1996. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of common judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14889 of 1992 and 14890 of 1992, decided on July 4, 1995. Both the Civil Writ Petitions were allowed and the impugned orders directing refund of voluntary retirement benefits granted to the petitioners were quashed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the civil writ petition No. 14889 of 1992 (L. P. A. No. 2 of 1996) are that the petitioner, M. S. Kang was in service of the Hindustan Machine Tools Limited (H. M. T. Limited) since 19. 4. 1963. The appellants introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 31. 3. 1989 for the employees of the H. M. T. Limited. This scheme was in two parts i. e. Scheme a and Scheme B. The petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme B on 1. 5. 1989. His application was accepted and he was retired under the aforesaid Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 31. 7. 1989. The petitioner was given the necessary retirement benefits under the Scheme. On 1. 3. 1991, the appellant Management issued an order whereby the pay scales of various categories of employees were revised with retrospective effect i. e. from 1. 1. 1987. These revised pay scales were made applicable on pro-rata basis to the employees, who were on the roll of the Company as on 31. 12. 1986, but have subsequently separated due to superannuation, voluntary retirement, discharge on medical grounds etc. Consequent upon the implementation of the revised pay scale with retrospective effect, the petitioner was granted additional voluntary retirement compensation amounting to Rs. 15,400/ -. He was not, however, paid the arrears of pay, service gratuity and arrears of bonus at enhanced rate. While the petitioner was making a claim that he be paid the remaining dues, the appellants issued the impugned orders calling upon the petitioner to refund Rs. 15,400/- paid to him by way of additional voluntary retirement compensation on the ground that the said payment has been made by mistake. The appellants also declined to release the amount of gratuity and arrears of pay admissible to the petitioner.

(3.) BOTH the petitioners challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the action taken by the respondents is without jurisdiction, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It was pleaded before the learned Single Judge that with the retrospec- tive revision of the pay scales, the petitioners became entitled to the grant of all benefits on the basis of the revised pay scales. It was further pleaded that there was no justification to withhold the payment of higher monetary benefits to the petitioners. Both the petitions were opposed on the ground that after having accepted the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of higher compensation merely because the pay scale have been revised with retrospective effect. Relevant parts of the Scheme are as under :