Ifci Ltd vs Sanjay Behari & Ors.

1.2 Any scheme for voluntary retirement is a package by itself. One cannot, thus, look to other voluntary retirement schemes, or other rules and regulations for the said purpose. There can be no quibble with this fundamental principle. It is not appropriate to add or subtract from the Scheme, nor can any concessions be given contrary to the Scheme, or if they are not provided for under the Scheme. What is to be seen are the clauses of the scheme under which voluntary retirement has been taken and the terms of the scheme must be strictly followed. [Para 21,22] [582-G-H; 583-A-B]

National Insurance Special Voluntary Retired/Retired Employees Association & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2018) 18 SCC 186 – relied on.

1.3 The very rationale of introducing a scheme for voluntary retirement, i.e., to reduce surplus staff and to bring in financial efficiency. It is referred to as the ‘Golden Handshake’. Ex gratia amounts are paid, not for doing any work or rendering any service, but in lieu of employees leaving services of the company and foregoing any further claims or rights in the same. It is optional, not compulsory. It is take it or leave it situation. Thus, anyone availing of a VRS does so with his eyes wide open. On having availed of the benefits under the scheme, if there are future changes, which may give any of the monetary benefits, the same cannot be read into the scheme. This would defeat the very purpose of having a VRS, i.e., to bring in financial efficiency, as it would not be possible that despite having paid the amounts, the organization can be lumped with further financial liability arising from re-thoughts by such persons, who have already availed of the VRS. The VRS cannot be frustrated in this manner. [Para 24] [584-B-E]

A.K. Bindal v. Union of India (2003) 5 SCC 163 : [2003]

3 SCR 928 – relied on.

1.4 The benefits under VRS-2008 are many, in terms of the financial package. Pension is only one of the items of that package, while calculating the amounts as per clause 7.2 of the Scheme. There is no ambiguity left by the propounders of the Scheme while setting out the prohibitive clause against any further compensation, in clause 9.4, or while stating that no revision shall be made in the voluntary retirement amount on account of pay revision, as per clause 9.12. The latter leaves no manner of doubt. The plea of the private respondents that there were certain aspects on which the Scheme was nebulous and, thus, the benefits on those accounts must be available to the respondents is, hence, without any basis. [Para 25] [584-E-G]

1.5 The complete substratum of the reasoning of the impugned order, and for that matter, the arguments of the counsel for the private respondents, supporting the reasoning, is based on the presumption that VRS-2001 (in operation from 14.12.2000 to 15.1.2001) was an open ended scheme in character. This is a fallacious approach for the reason that every scheme for voluntary retirement really has a time frame. Not only that, VRS-2001 was followed by a fresh Scheme in 2003-2004, and thereafter in 2008. The terms of the Schemes were different. While the 2001 scheme initially, in clause 8.7, provided for a full and final settlement of claims, it is as per a clarification issued on 4.1.2001 that the benefit was extended, to provide for future pay revisions. This was so far as the 2001 Scheme is concerned. Even the 2003-2004 Scheme did not provide such clarification, and the endeavour to take up this issue, through the resolution of the Rajya Sabha Committee was not successful as the IFCI stuck by its original plan. VRS2008 left no manner of doubt, and possibly, the IFCI was more cautious to, again and again, emphasise through different clauses that it would not be called upon to incur any other financial liability. [Para 28] [585-E-G; 586-A]

1.6 No doubt the Pension Regulations were specifically included as a benefit under VRS-2008. However, the Pension Regulations and the VRS have to be read harmoniously and, in the context of its inclusion, along with the other terms of the VRS. In the Pension Regulations, no doubt the date of retirement includes the date on which the employee voluntarily retires, but that would mean that the concerned employee would be deemed to have retired on the date he terminates his relationship with the IFCI. As to how emoluments have to be calculated, it is the average emoluments of the last ten (10) months of his service. This would naturally mean the emoluments received just prior to the termination of the relationship of employment. As regards IFCI Regulations, 1974, more specifically Regulation 33, in the context of retirement under the said Regulations taking their meaning from the 1974 Regulations, it refers to an option with an employee, on attaining 50 years of age, to retire any time by giving the Corporation three months’ notice in writing. [Para 29] [586-B-D]

1.7 Private respondents cannot claim parity with such people who had retired after full length of service and did not terminate their relationship. As regards the position qua persons who may have retired on the same date, on attaining the age of superannuation, as the persons who sought termination of relationship under VRS-2008 with all the benefits, such persons have not been paid the benefit of revised pension for the past period. [Para 31] [586-F-G]

1.8 Pension is for past services. However, it was not the full tenure, but the tenure was terminated by mutual consent, before it would have reached the end, on superannuation. To grant the private respondents the benefit of pay revision, retrospectively, and that to be taken into account for grant of future pension would be a bounty which cannot be given to these private respondents. The benefit is meant for persons who are actually in service, i.e., serving employees. The submission of the respondents that the CTC structure was, in fact, more beneficial and, thus, the benefits were not given retrospectively, of the RBI 2007 pay-scales, made applicable from 1.11.2013, would be of not much use for the reason that even the CTC structure was introduced after the termination of relationship between IFCI and the private respondent. [Para 32] [586-G-H; 587-A-B]

1.9 There was an inappropriate comparison with SB, who was the serving employee, and opted for continuation of RBI pay-scales, in view of her special position, being visually challenged. She was the sole person in this category and thus, benefits were given retrospectively to her. She was not an optee of the VRS. [Para 33] [587-C]

1.10 The employees who opt for voluntary retirement make a planning for future and take into consideration all its implications. At the time of giving the option, they know where they stand and they cannot get additional benefits other than mentioned in the Scheme. They prepare themselves to contract out of the jural relationship and are bound by their own acts.” [Para 34] [587-E]

1.11 The plea of delay is a second battle which has been waged against the IFCI, claiming to be on a different cause of action. The principle as to why no other benefit, other than under the VRS-2008 should be made available, remains the same. Even if it is accepted that their knowledge was derived only in 2014, when for the first time they raised the issue, the same was rejected promptly by the appellant within a few days. Continuing representation on the same issue is really not of much use. There is a gap of one and a half years between the last representation and the sending of a legal notice. This, by itself, could have been fatal, but the private respondents must fail on multifarious grounds. [Para 35] [587-F-G; 588-A]

1.12 If the RBI pay-scales had been adopted by IFCI with retrospective effect, the private respondents could never have had a claim as their chapter was closed. Merely because, for existing employees, RBI pay-scales had been applied, albeit retrospectively, without past benefits, that cannot be a ground to start getting pension on the basis of a calculation based on those revised pay-scales, on the reasoning that pension is a continuing right for past services rendered. The very cut-off date for calculation of pension, for the private respondents, was the date of their termination of relationship, and the calculation of pension under the Pension Regulations also proceeds on the basis of the last ten (10) months’ salary prior to that date. Thus, the endeavour by the private respondents is a misadventure and has to be rejected. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. [Para 36, 37] [588-B-D]

P.P. Vaidya & Ors. v. IFCI Ltd. & Ors. SLP(C) No. 16364/2014; Bank of India v. K. Mohandas & Ors. (2009) 4 SCALE 576 ; D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 : [1983] 2 SCR 165 – referred to.