Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hpsidc Officers Welfare Association vs . R.D. Nazeem & Anr. on 5 July, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
HPSIDC Officers Welfare Association Vs. R.D. Nazeem & Anr.
COPC No.365 of 2024 .
05.07.2024 Present: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Manish Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, respectively.
2. The petitioner alleges violation of decision dated 27.12.2022 rendered in CWPOA No.3215 of 2019 (HPSIDC Officers Welfare Association & ors. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.). Learned counsel has, in particular, highlighted following from the aforesaid decision:-
2(i). That the petitioner had instituted the aforesaid CWPOA with the contention that they are entitled to retirement gratuity in terms of Service Bye-Laws of the H.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (HPSIDC) and Group Gratuity Scheme of LIC subscribed by it. According to the petitioner, as per the Service Bye-Laws of HPSIDC and Group Gratuity Scheme subscribed by it, there was no upper limit in terms of payable retirement ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2024 20:36:56 :::CIS gratuity to the members of the petitioner-Association, .
whereas the respondents (therein) had been trying to impose the rules applicable to the State Government employees, whereby the outer limit of Gratuity was fixed at Rs.10 Lakhs.
2(ii). In paragraph 18 of the aforesaid decision, it was held by the Court that the State Government had failed to justify its stand; Nothing came forth as to why the SIDC had been directed to follow the principle of gratuity as applicable to the State Government employees; There should not be any reason for the State to deny the benefits available to the petitioners when there was no financial burden on the State Government. The Court also noticed that the Gratuity is paid by the LIC; Premium is paid to LIC from the contributions of the petitioners and other similarly situated employees of HPSIDC. The Court also took cognizance of the fact that SIDC had received the amount of Gratuity in respect of those petitioners, who had retired in terms of this scheme, however, such petitioners had been paid a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs only and the remaining amount of Gratuity was lying with the SIDC. On the basis of these facts, the stand of the State was held to be incomprehensible.
3. The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:-
::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2024 20:36:56 :::CIS
"20. This Court has not been able to find any reason for justification of stand taken by State Government, in .
result, petition is allowed. Annexure P-13, dated 24.10.2011, and Annexure P-15, dated 22.02.2012, are quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to ratify the amendment carried out by the Board of Directors of SIDC with a purpose to enable it to disburse the gratuity to the petitioners in terms of its Bye Laws as also the Group Gratuity Scheme of LIC adopted by it."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to an office communication dated 11.04.2023, originating from the office of respondent No.2 and addressed to respondent No.1, giving clear intention as to how respondent No.2 understood the judgment and the mode & manner of its implementation. This would be apparent from following paras:-
"Further, as per advice of the F.D., the required information(s) are as under:-
1) Till September, 2011, the Corporation had paid the gratuity to its retired employees as per Group Gratuity Scheme i.e. 15 days salary as on the date of retirement on each year service subject to maximum of 20 months' salary as per earlier decision held by the BOD in its meeting held on 10th March, 1986 (copy at Annexure-A) and also decision taken by BOD in its meeting held on 23.09.1992 (copy at Annexure-D). Thereafter, from October, 2011, the Corporation is paying gratuity as per State Govt. Rules and rates i.e. 15 days salary subject to maximum of 33 years i.e. 16½ month salary on the basis of decision taken by the BOD in its meeting held on 19.10.1990 (copy at Annexure-B) and approval obtained from the State Govt. under Article-143 (ii) of the Articles of Association of the HPSIDC vide letter dated 7th March, 1991 (copy at Annexure -C) and also on the basis of State Govt. directions conveyed from time to time vide their letters dated 24.10.2011 & 22.02.2012 which are now quashed by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment delivered in the matter on 27.12.2022 (copies at Annexure-I).
2) In case Corporation pays the gratuity continuously as per Group Gratuity Scheme of the LIC in respect of employees who had retired from the service of the ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2024 20:36:56 :::CIS Corporation between October, 2011 to December, 2022, the financial implication i.e. differential amount between .
Govt. Gratuity and Group Gratuity Scheme adopted by Corporation from LIC, shall be approx. Rs.3.00 crores and the detail of which is at Annexure-F.
3) In case Corporation pays the gratuity continuously as per Group Gratuity Scheme of the LIC in respect of existing employees to be retired from the service of the Corporation from January, 2023 onwards, the financial implication i.e. differential amount between Govt. Gratuity and Group Gratuity Scheme adopted by the Corporation from LIC shall be approx. Rs.4.00 crores, and the detail of which is at Annexure-G.
4) As per statement of Group Gratuity Scheme of LIC as on 30.09.2022, the amount of Rs.5,86,29,425/- is available in the account of Corporation and copy of statement is enclosed at Annexure-H.
5) Till date, the financial position of the Corporation is satisfactory and it is fully sustainable and meeting its financial commitments through its own resources. As per draft balance sheet for the year 2020-21, the Corporation has earned net profit of Rs.5.54 Crores.
6) There should not be two sets of Rules for payment of gratuity to the employees of the Corporation as it may invite unnecessary litigation in future.
In view of the judgment dated 27.12.2022 (copy enclosed at Annexure-I), the matter is again submitted for further necessary action at the level of the State Govt. as the Hon'ble High Court has directed the Respondent No.1 (State Govt. of H.P.) to ratify the amendment carried out by the Board of Directors of HPSIDC with a purpose to enable it to disburse the gratuity to the petitioners in terms of its Bye-Laws as also the Group Gratuity Scheme of LIC has been adopted by it. Moreover, with regard to para yksd midze lfefr ds 31osa dkjokbZ izfrosnu (2014-15) (ckjgoha fo/kkulHkk) ij vfxze dkjokbZ ckjs (copy enclosed at Annexure-J) the State Govt. may also apprise the Hon'ble Vidhan Sabha about the final outcome of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in the matter."
It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and is borne out from the document itself that according to the SIDC, an amount of Rs.5,86,29,425/- was available with it for disbursement towards implementation of the judgment. The document is complete with the ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2024 20:36:56 :::CIS computation of gratuity payable to the employees of .
HPSIDC.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an office communication dated 30.03.2024, issued from the office of Principal Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, i.e. present respondent No.1, to the Managing Director, HPSIDC (present respondent No.2), wherein approval of the Government for ratification of the amendment in the Service Bye-Laws carried out by the Board of Directors of HPSIDC in its meeting held on 23.09.1992 was conveyed. HPSIDC was requested to comply with the directions in the judgment dated 27.12.2022 in letter and spirit. HPSIDC was also directed to adhere to the LIC Group Gratuity-cum-Life Insurance Scheme, Service Bye-Laws adopted and other applicable rules/regulations while disbursing the gratuity to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons of the Corporation, subject to the final outcome of LPA filed by the State Government.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision dated 03.04.2024 rendered in Execution Petition No.185 of 2023, instituted by the petitioner for implementation of the judgment dated 27.12.2022. In the execution proceedings, learned Additional Advocate General had placed on record the afore-noticed ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2024 20:36:56 :::CIS communication dated 30.03.2024 and submitted that the .
mandate contained in the judgment had been complied with. Taking note of the stand of the respondents and office communication dated 30.03.2024, the execution petition was disposed of on 03.04.2024.
7. The document from which this contempt petition has stemmed is an office circular dated 14.05.2024, which inter alia states that the financial benefits on account of difference amount of gratuity (if any) in respect of petitioners and similarly situated retired employees during the period w.e.f. 01.10.2011 to 31.12.2022 has been worked out in accordance with the Group Gratuity-cum-
Life Insurance Scheme as adopted by the Corporation from LIC and factoring in clause 17 of the ibid scheme.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that figuring of Clause 17 of the Group Gratuity Scheme is in stark violation of the judgment dated 27.12.2022 as was also understood by respondent No.2 and as is reflected in the office communication dated 11.04.2023.
Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record copy of office instructions dated 11.06.2024 from respondent No.1, according to which, respondent No.1 has complied with the directions by ratifying the amendment in the Service Bye-Laws carried out by the Board of Directors of HPSIDC in terms of office letter dated 30.03.2024.
::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2024 20:36:56 :::CISConfronted with the above submissions, learned .
Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 seeks four weeks' time to file/obtain compliance affidavit/reply/ instructions in the matter on the above aspects.
List on 08.08.2024.
It is made clear that pendency of this contempt petition will not come in the way of the respondents for implementing the judgment in question in letter and spirit.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
July 05, 2024 Judge
Mukesh
::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2024 20:36:56 :::CIS