P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Harikrishan Aggarwal v. Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (20 Mar 2017)

Once an employee takes voluntary retirement under a VRS Scheme, he cannot claim benefits with respect to past services

MANU/DE/0775/2017

Service

By filing present writ petition, Petitioner prays for grant of second Time Bound Promotion Scale (TBPS) dated 23rd July, 1997. However, Petitioner took voluntary retirement under VRS Scheme of Respondent/Employer way back on 29th February, 2004 before filing the present petition.

Once an employee takes voluntary retirement under a VRS Scheme, such an employee thereafter cannot claim benefits with respect to past services with his employer as by taking VRS benefits and receiving a golden handshake lump sum amount, an employee thereafter leaves with all his rights as per the VRS scheme as is stated by Supreme Court in case of A.K.Bindal and Another Vs. Union of India and Others. Supreme Court observed that, main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of jural relationship between employer and employee. After amount is paid and employee ceases to be under employment of company or undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights, with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period.

Petitioner who has received VRS benefits under VRS scheme is estopped from filing present petition, by claiming a right which accrued even as per Petitioner assumedly pursuant to TBPS dated 23rd July, 1997 i.e 20 years back resulting in claim being barred by limitation/delay and laches.

In terms of the TBPS scheme, a person gets at best two higher pay-scales of the higher promotion posts, but that is in case that two promotions are not already granted i.e a person who has already received two promotions in his career not entitled to get promotion under TBPS scheme. Since, Petitioner has already received two promotions, he cannot claim benefit of the second stage TBPS. Though Petitioner had to fulfil the eligibility criteria of higher promotion post, and with respect to which TBPS circular dated 23rd July, 1997 is clear, yet Petitioner has not stated as to how Petitioner qualifies for the post of Executive Engineer/Manager (Technical) because Petitioner has not stated what are the eligibility criteria for appointment to post of Executive Engineer/Manager (Technical) and how Petitioner satisfies the same.

Writ petition is grossly barred by limitation and which calls for application of doctrine of delay and laches so far as present writ petition in view of ratio of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Orissa and Another vs. Mamta Mohant. In facts of present case, it is seen that Petitioner even as per Petitioner was entitled to benefit of second TBPS on 15th August, 1999 when allegedly a favorable order was passed in favour of Petitioner, however, this writ petition is filed in year 2017 i.e after 18 years of alleged order by which petitioner is said to have given benefit of second TBPS. Order dated 15th August, 1999 giving benefit of second TBPS to Petitioner was not correct, and Petitioner therefore was rightly not granted benefit of second TBPS under the same, as, Petitioner had already received two promotions, first to post of Superintendent (Technical) on 31st August, 1989 and second to post of Assistant Manager (Technical) on 1st April, 1994. Present petition therefore is grossly barred by delay and laches and is accordingly dismissed by applying ratio in the case of Mamta Mohanty. Facts showed that Petitioner is guilty of deliberate concealment of facts, deliberate mis-statement of facts, setting up a particular case in writ petition but stating differently in list of dates and which also is modified during arguments of second TBPS allegedly granted on 1st April, 1994 being not a TBPS benefit but was a grant of promotion to the Petitioner.

Relevant : A.K.Bindal and Another Vs. Union of India and Others., State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamta Mohant

Tags : PROMOTION   ELIGIBILITY   VRS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved