JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this bunch of 11 petitions, the erstwhile employees (petitioners) of the Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited have inter alia sought quashing of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS for short), whereby, they were paid compensation while dispensing with their services. A further direction has also been sought directing the respondents to take the petitioners back in service or adjust them in any other cooperative or any Government department. In case the petitioners do not succeed in aforesaid prayer, an alternate relief has been sought to the effect that 50% dearness allowance be added in the last drawn pay, while computing the compensation payable to them, as per definition of 'salary' defined in the VRS itself.

(2.) Having heard the rival contentions of the respective learned counsels and on perusal of the pleadings alongwith the relevant record filed therewith, I am of the view that as far as the prayer seeking quashing of VRS is concerned, the same cannot be accepted for the reasons stated in the succeeding paragraphs.

(3.) Primary argument to assail the VRS is that those who did not opt for the VRS were in the end better of as they were later on adjusted either in some other cooperative or in the Government department, as against the claim of the petitioners, who were induced into accepting the VRS on the premise that in case they do not opt for the same, they would have to face the prospects of retrenchment, in accordance with law. I do not find any force in the said argument as, other-than the bald assertion that those who did not opt for the VRS have been given better treatment, there is nothing on record to establish the same.