M.SRIDEVI Vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28274 of 2023, dtd. 3/5/2024.

(2.) Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. V. Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Hindusthan Aeronautics Limited.

(3.) It has been contended by the appellant that she was initially appointed as an Assistant Engineer with the respondents on 27/5/1992, later promoted as Engineer, Deputy Manager (Designs), Manager (Designs) and finally promoted as Senior Manager (Designs) during the year 2016. There is a Premature Retirement Scheme with the respondent introduced way back in the year 1976, which had covered employees, who have completed 15 years of continuous service in the company or attained 45 years of age as on the last date of September of every year and those who have performance rating of "65 and below" for three times during the preceding ten years (applicable in respect of executives), and in respect of workmen, the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) Criteria for consideration under the Scheme would be "below 50" for three times during the preceding ten years. The appellant had achieved more than 70 points towards PAR Scores and she also secured 80.25 towards Mutually Agreed Tasks Scores course for the preceding four years. There was an amendment to Premature Retirement Scheme by Circular dtd. 26/4/2022, which introduced one more categorization set of employees based upon Management Review Categorization decision in respect of the persons who have been rated as "B" or "C" in the Management Review Categorization for three consecutive times irrespective of the Performance Ratings during the preceding three years, applicable in respect of Executives and those who have been imposed with two major penalties on account of the misconduct during the preceding ten years or those who are direct workmen whose efficiency remains below 70% consistently during the preceding twelve quarters despite availability of sufficient workload. An amendment was also incorporated to the said notice and a note was also appended to the coverage of the permanent employees i.e. if the employees are not able to perform in the existing departments/shops on account of reasons like less workload, job misfit etc., they may be given an option to move another department or shop in line with the organizational requirements, against a written consent, before being considered under the Scheme. They may also be nominated for Training Programme to improve efficiency and an employee whose physical or mental health is such that it makes her inefficient would be considered for retirement under the Scheme.