PETER V. JOHN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners are husband and wife and at the relevant time, they were the employees of the subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. They opted for the V.R.S. benefits floated by the Company and they were given the admissible V.R.S. benefits. Thereafter, the petitioners claimed pension and other benefits which were payable to Central Govt. Employees and when the claim was made, it was found that the petitioners were claiming the benefits of both, i.e., the employees of the Company as well as the Central Government employees, and accordingly, the orders giving V.R.S. benefits to the petitioners were recalled by the respondents.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners moved Hon'ble Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 10042 of 2002 (U), which was adjudicated by the Judgment dated 26.10.2009, a copy whereof has been brought on record as Annex. 8 to the writ application. The stand of the respondents before the Kerala High Court was that, at best the petitioners could claim benefits available either to the Central Government employees or to the Company employees and the petitioners could not claim the benefits available to both. The Judgment passed by the Kerala High Court shows that realizing this difficulty, the counsel for the petitioners, on instructions from the petitioners, submitted that petitioners shall be contended with the V.R.S benefits that were already received by them from the respondent Company, and they shall not be pursuing their claim for pension or any other benefits, which were admissible to the Central Govt. Employees. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in its Judgment dated 26.10.2009 passed in O.P. No. 10042 of 2002 (U), and on the basis of said submission the impugned withdrawal of the V.R.S. benefits were directed to stand recalled. It was also directed that if the petitioners had any other claim from the Company, it would be open for the petitioners to seek redressal of their grievances from the respondent Company.