K.L. Manjunath, J.@mdashAggrieved by the order passed by a learned Single Judge in WP No. 15080 of 2008 dated 16-6-2011, the present appeals are filed by the appellant.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Facts leading to these appeals are that: The appellant is a board registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondents were employees of the appellant-board. Government of Karnataka had envisaged a scheme of voluntary retirement in public sector undertakings in the State. Pursuant to the same, about forty employees of the appellant-board submitted their applications opting to retire from service under the voluntary retirement scheme [VRS]. Amongst the forty employees, the writ petitioners are also included. They submitted applications to accept their retirement under VRS. The said applications were accepted by the appellant-board with effect from 31-7-2008 and entire monetary benefits payable under the scheme were also granted by the appellant and the respondents had received the same. After accepting the monetary benefits payable to them by the board, the respondents filed the writ petition requesting the court to extend the benefit of revised scales of pay and benefits accrued from the enhancement of age of superannuation and thereby to re-determine the befits under the VRS, as the age of superannuation has been enhanced from 58 years to 60 years.
4. The writ petition was contested by the appellant-board, contending that the writ petitioners are not entitled to claim any benefit either due to revision of pay scales or due to enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years.
5. The learned Single Judge heard the parties and allowed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 16-6-2011, directing the appellant-board to consider the case of writ petitioners for grant of benefits of revised pay scales and enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. Challenging the said order, the present appeals are filed.
6. The main grounds of attack of the appellant before this court are that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition, because, when once an employee has accepted voluntary retirement based on the scheme envisaged by the appellant-board and having accepted all monetary benefits, they are not entitled to reopen the issue either on the ground of revision of pay scales or due to enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. According to the appellant-board, the learned Single Judge did not consider the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners submits that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of this case, because, in the instant case, there was an order to revise the pay scales even before the VRS was envisaged and interim relief was also granted to the employees. Therefore, they are entitled to claim the benefit under the revision of pay scales. He further submits that since the age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years, the respondents-writ petitioners are entitled for the difference of retirement benefit considering the remaining length of service taking into consideration the age of superannuation as 60 years instead of 58 years.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, what is to be considered by us in these appeals is whether the learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the writ petition by directing the appellant-board to grant benefits of revised pay scales to employees who had taken voluntary retirement before the revision of pay scales were coming into effect and also to consider payment of retirement benefit considering the age of superannuation as 60 years instead of 58 years?
9. It is not in dispute that VRS was envisaged by the appellant-board in 2007. The circular in this regard was issued on 22-10-2007 and the applications were submitted before the due date fixed and the employees who opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme were relieved from service with effect from 31-7-2008. Two days prior to 31-7-2008 i.e. on 28-7-2008, the government decided to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years with effect from 17-7-2008. Therefore, it is clear that the government has passed the order enhancing the age of superannuation on 28-7-2008 with retrospective effect from 17-7-2008. Much before the said date, all the writ petitioners had submitted their applications opting voluntary retirement under the scheme. On the date of submitting the applications for voluntary retirement under the scheme, the age of superannuation was 58 years. It is, no doubt, true that the order enhancing the age of superannuation has come into effect from 17-7-2008. Therefore, we are of the view that when the applications were submitted by the employees pursuant to the scheme envisaged by the appellant-board, they were fully aware about their entitlement of benefits under the scheme. There is no clause in the scheme that the such benefits that would be accrued to such employees who opted for voluntary retirement. In the absence of any specific clause in the contract or in the scheme, we are of the view that the writ petitioners could not claim such benefits. Accordingly, we hold that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in directing the appellant-board to extend the benefits to the writ petitioners taking into consideration their age of superannuation as 60 years.
10. In so far as the claim of the writ petitioners in regard to revision of pay scales is concerned, the order revising the pay scales was passed on 26-9-2008 notionally fixing the pay scams of the employees of the appellant-board with effect from 1-7-2005 and the monetary benefits were receivable with effect from 1-8-2008. In the instant case, there is no specific clause in the scheme envisaged by the appellant-board extending the benefits of revision of pay scales to employees who opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme. Even if we consider the case of the writ petitioners vis-�-vis the order dated 26-9-2008, revising the pay scales of the employees of the appellant-board, the order had come into effect only from 1-8-2008 and the writ petitioners were relieved of duties with effect from 31-7-2008. Therefore, on facts, the revision of pay scales will also not enure to the benefit of the writ petitioners, since only the employees who continued in the appellant-board would be entitled for such revision of pay scales with effect from 1-8-2008.
11. In addition to this, though the appellant-board has relied upon the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of A.K. BINDAL and ITI LTD [supra], it is seen that the learned Single Judge has not considered the effect of these two judgments and he has also not considered how the said judgments are relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. On a perusal of the judgments, we are of the opinion that these two judgments squarely cover the case on hand. Even if the pay scales have been revised with retrospective effect, since the option for voluntary retirement was given much earlier to that, and having the applications of the writ petitioners were accepted before the revision of pay scales came into effect, unless and until there is a specific clause in the scheme extending such benefits to employees who opted voluntary retirement, such benefits cannot be extended to them.
12. In the result these appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed.
