Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Srikanta Sadhukhan vs M/O Mines on 4 December, 2025
1 O.A. 786 of 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/786/2016 Date of Hearing: 14.11.2025
Date of Order: 04.12.2025.
Coram : Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
In the matter of :
1. Srikanta Sadhukhan, President, HCL, Ex-Officers Welfare
Forum, having Office at New Garia Co-operative Society,
Srinagar Main Road, Sector-G, Ward No.2, P.O Panchasayar,
Garia, 700094. Kolkata
2. Dilip Kumar Sen, Son of late Hiralal Sen, 25/4, Jeliapara Lane,
Kolkata - 700012.
3. Pranab Mukhopadhyay, son of Late S.K. Mukhopadhyay, 2/2
L. Dr. Panchanan Mitra Lane, Kolkta-700085.
4. Tapan Kumar Das, son of Late S.C. Das of 3/208, Rabindra
Nagar, Kolkata- 700 060.
5. Sankar Ghosh, son of late N.N. Ghosh, of Shyambati, Subhas
Palli, Shantiniketan, District- Birbhum.
6. Prabir Kumar Joarder, son of Late S.C. Joarder, of 215/D,
Kalikapur Road, Vivekananda Palli, Kolkata-700099.
7. Kalyan Kumar Das, son of Late P.C. Das, House No. 133,
Nayagram, P.O. Ghatsila, District-Singhbhum East, Jharkhand.
8. Himadri Kumar Banerjee, son of Late Κ.Ρ. Banerjee, 135,
Santoshpur Avenue, Kolkata-700075.
9. Subhas Ranjan Roy, son of Late K.P. Roy, 3/136, Mahajati
Nagar, P.O. Agarpara, District -24-parganas(North).
10. Anuradha Ghosh, wife of Sri Kalyan Kumar Ghosh, 146/1C,
Dr. G.S. Bose Road, Kolkata- 700039.
11. Bijan Kumar Bhattacharya, son of late S. C. Bhattacharya,
54/2/1, Nayabagan Road, P.O. Shyam Nagar, District-24-
Parganas (North).
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 O.A. 786 of 2016
12. Sukumar Maitra, son of S.C. Maitra, 100/9, New
Basudebpur Road, Extension, Kolkata-700056. Belghoria,
13. Shyamlal Biswas, son of Late P. Biswas, Village & P.O.
Kundarati, District -24-Parganas (South).
14. Debashish Bhattacharya son of Late K.K. Bhattacharjee, Flat
No. 5, Baroda Avenue, Kolkata-700084.
15. Ashoke NathJha, son of Late Shyam B. Jha, FlatNo. A/2,
Sudipta Apartment, Nabapally Hatiara Road, Jangra, Baguhati,
Kolkata-700059.
16. T.K. Chakraborty, son of Late T.B. Chakraborty, 17/1
Krishna Mohan Mitra Lane, Salkia, Howrah -711 106.
17. Dr. Rathindra Nath Mitra, son of Late G.C. Mitra,
Jagannathpur, Simultala, .P.O. Ramkrishnapally, Kolkata-700
150.
18. Tapan Kumar Ghosh, son of Sri Mrigendra Nath Ghosh, of
A/5, Geetanjali Complex, Kadma, Jamsedpur.
19. Purnendu Kumar Swami, son of Late 20, Mondal Swami,
G.K. Bag, LATU Lichutola, Chandannagar, Hooghly 0 712136.
20. Durgapada Banerjee, son of Late Gobinda Prasad Banerjee,
Kantapukur, Lakshmipur Math, G.T. Road, Burdwan-713101.
21. Phani Bhusan Kar, son of Late B.N. Kar, Balaramdi,
Jhargram, District Midnapore (West).
22. Asish Kumar Naskar, son of Dr. Rebatinath Naskar,
Fatepurhat, Fatepur-743513, District -24 Parganas (South).
23. Tridib Chowdhury, son of Late R.H. Chowdhury, 8, Sashi
Bhusan Ghosh Lane, Howrah - 711102.
24. Kamakhya Prasad Chatterjee (K.P. Chatterjee) son of D.L.
Chatterjee, 20/3, Shibtala Bye Lane, P.O. Seoraphully, District -
Hooghly.
25. Falguni Banerjee, son of late Panchanan Banerjee, Mohan
Kunja Apartment, P.O. - Ushagram, Asansol-713303.
26. Manik Ranjan Nag, son of Late P.K. Nag, Ajanta Housing
Complex, P.Ο. D.S.K. Lane, Howrah.
27. Samir Kumar Ray, Son of late Sukumar Roy, Flat No.D-4/5,
ECTP, Phase-IV, Kolkata-700 107.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3 O.A. 786 of 2016
28. P.K. Pathak, (Prabir Kumar Pathak), Subhamsree
Apartment, Flat No. 6, 8A, Ho-chi-Minh Sarani, Kolkata-
700061.
29. Amitava Bhattacharya, son of Late Amullya Chandra
Bhattacharya, 18/8, Panchanantola Road, Nabagram 712246,
District-Hooghly.
30. Sashibhusan Narayan Deb, son of Late B.T.N. Deb, Bank
Colony, Dak Bunglow Road, Ghatsila- 832303, District -
Singhbhum (East), Jharkhand.
31. Swadesh Bandhu Bose, son of Late N.B. Bose, Kajirhat
Godabattola, P.O. Lakurdih - 713102, District- Burdwan.
32. Panchu Gopal Banerjee, son of Late Μ.Μ. Banerjee, Kundu
Bhawan, 72, Raja Ram Mohan Lane, Konnagar, District-
Hooghly.
33. Atanka Bhanjan Das, Near J.C. High School, College Road,
Ghatsila, District-Singhbhum (East), Jharkhand.
34. Amal Ch. Roy, son of late Raj Chandra Roy, Sreepally South
Canal Road, P.O. Bengal Enamel, District-24-Parganas. (North).
35. Kalyani Roy, wife of Sri Sabuj Baran Roy, A.P. Nagar, P.O.
Sonarpur, District-24- Parganas (South).
36. Prodyout Das, son of late G.B. Das, Village & P.O.
Madhyasibpur, District- 24-Parganas (South).
37. Asok Sen, son of late K.N.Sen,9, Jamir Lane, Kolkata-
700019.
38. Tapan Kumar Biswas, son of late Prafulla Biswas, 26,
Ramkanai Adhikari Lane, Kolkata-700012.
39. Kishore Ganguly, son of late N. Ganguly, Nandan Co-
operative Society, M.N. Roy Road, P.O. Rajpur, Kolkata-
700149.
40. Chandra Mohan Minz, Goutam Budh Marg, P.O. Bariatoo,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
41. Bijoy Kumar Dey, son of S.N.Dey, 15, East Bunglo, P.O.
Mosabani Mines, Singbhum (East), Jharkhand.
42. Ranjit Kumar Das, son of S.K. Das, 559, Basu Nagar, P.O.
Madham Gram, Kolkata -700129.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
4 O.A. 786 of 2016
43. Saumendra Nath Munshi, Hilandpark,5/B/2, 'B' Tower,
Kolkata-700
44. Kamal Chatterjee, Barbil, Orissa.
45. Pranab Kumar Dey, son of Late M.N. Dey, D-4/2/4,Anamika
Housing Complex, 10 M.A. Road, Kolkata-700156.
46. Shib Ranjan Mondal, son of Late A.K. Mondal, 41, B. Dr.
G.S. Basu Road, Kolkata-700039.
47. Subhash Datta, son of late B.K. Dutta, KMDA Plot No. BD-
71,107, Shantipally, 700107. Kolkata-
48. Arun Kumar Das, son of late Κ. Κ. Das, Subarnarekha
Apartment. Ghatsila, Singbhum (East), Jharkhand.
49. Subrata Basu, son of Late K.K. Basu, Subarnarekha
Apartment, Ghatsila, Singbhum (East), Jharkhand.
.............Applicants
-versus-
1. Union of India, service through the Secretary, Ministry of
Mines, Sastry Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.
2. Hindustan Copper Limited, having its office at Asutosh
Choudhury Avenue, Kolkata 700019.
3. The Chairman - cum - Managing Director, Hindustan Copper
Limited, having his office at Asutosh Choudhury Avenue,
Kolkata 700019.
4. Secretary, Finance Department, Government of India, South
Block, New Delhi 110 011.
...... Respondents
For the Applicants : Mr. B.P. Manna, Mr. S.K. De (Counsel)
For the Respondents : Mr. G. Singh (Counsel)
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
5 O.A. 786 of 2016
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :
1. The applicants have filed this O.A under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):
"a) An order do issue directing the respondents to revise the scale of pay as per the office order dated 22.04.2006 revising scale of pay to the Executives (below Board Level) in terms of approval of Govt. of India Conveyed vide letter dated 17.04.2006 of Ministry of Mines giving effect from 01.01.97 to 31.12.2006 as well as Circular dated 20.02.1995 and to release the arrear payments arising out of pay revision w.e.f 01.01.1997 to the applicants with interest.
b) And to pass such further order or orders and/or direction or directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
2. Facts of the case as narrated by the applicants are as follows:
The applicants are all voluntarily retired below board level executives of Hindustan Copper Limited. The applicants were working in Hindustan Copper Limited in Grade of E0 to E9. All the applicants voluntarily retired in phases from 1998 onwards under the existing voluntary scheme. Government of India, Ministry of Mines by memo dated 17th April 2006 revised the scale of pay of the executives of Hindustan Copper Limited board level and below level executives w.e.f. 01.01.1997 (notional basis) and the revised scale of pay was to be implemented with effect from 01.08.2004. The applicants having voluntarily retired before the date of notification on 17.06.2006 have been denied the benefits of pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.1997 even though they were on the rolls of the company on 01.01.1997. Hence this O.A.
3. Ld. Counsel for the applicants submits as follows:
At the time of opting for VR, the pay scale revision for the executives belonging to the below Board level was due from 01.01.1997 and was pending. Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 O.A. 786 of 2016 Company's Circular No. HCL/PERS/9/37 dated 20.02.1995 (Page 66 of O.A) provided that all employees who are retired or would be retiring under the VR schemes of the Company would be entitled to wage/pay revision benefits as and when the same was finalised. The Government of India vide Department of Public Enterprises' OM No. 2(32)/97-DPE(WC)GL-XXX dated 08.12.2000 (Pages 68-72 of OA) also provided that ex-gratia of VR optees as also the other benefits payable will be recalculated on revision of pay scales and would be paid to the VR optees.
The Ministry of Mines, Govt. Of India vide its communication No. 10/3/2004/Met.III dated 17.04.2006 (Page 73 of OA) directed HCL to revise the pay scales of executives (below Board level) due from 01.01.1997 as per scales of pay and guidelines issued by the Department of Public Enterprises.
Accordingly, HCL issued pay revision order vide Office Order No. HCL/18.15 dated 22.04.2006 (Page 74-79 of OA) which inter alia provides "The revision shall cover all the regular executives (below the board level) borne on the rolls of Hindustan Copper Limited as on 01.01.1997 subject to the conditions enumerated in para 5.1 and 12.2 of this Office Order." The period of this pay revision shall be from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2006. It is emphasised that pay revision clearly specified that it will be applicable to those who were on rolls of HCL as on 01.01.1997 and the period of coverage specified that it will be from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2006.
All the applicants before the Tribunal were on the rolls of HCL as on 01.01.1997 and the period is also covered as all the Applicants opted for VR between 1.1.1997 and 31.12.2006. The communication dated 17.04.2006 from the Ministry of Mines as also the Pay Revision Order issued on 22.04.2006 by HCL did not differentiate among serving executives or VR optees/superannuated, resigned or separated by transfer or death. Hence, the applicants are fully Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 O.A. 786 of 2016 entitled/legally eligible for the refixation of their basic pay in the revised pay scales and refixation of VR ex-gratia and other relevant benefits as mentioned and clarified in the Department of Public Enterprises OM dated 08.12.2000 and HCL's own circular dated 20.02.1995.
Para 5.1 and Para 12.2 of Pay Revision Order dated 22.04.2006 reads as follows:
Para 5.1: "The fixation of pay in revised scales of pay will be effective from 01.01.1997. However, this will be notional from 01.01.1997 and actual payment would commence from 01.08.2004."
This was done in the case of serving executives, superannuated, separated by resignation, transfer to other PSUs and separated by death. But VR optee executives who are covered by the Pay Revision Order were left for the reasons best known to HCL. It was a clear case of discrimination and bias on the part of HCL.
Para 12.2: "The matter of payment of arrears for the earlier period from 1.1.1997 to 31.7.2004 and modalities of payment thereof will be decided separately keeping in view the paying capacity of the Company in consultation with the Administrative Ministry, l.e., Ministry of Mines, Government of India."
From the para 12.2 of Pay Revision Order quoted above it is evident that Government and HCL had positive intention, that with further improvement in the financial health arrears from 01.01.1997 to 31.07.2004 would be released. True enough, since the year 2007 with its proposal to the Government and with the administrative Ministry's approval HCL released its arrears to the executives from 01.12.1999 to 31.07.2004 barring a period from 1.1.1997 to 30.11.1999 on Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A. 786 of 2016 the plea of a loss of Rs. 10.31 crores during 2008-09. Despite making a net profit of Rs. 155 crores in 2009-10, HCL did not release the last instalment of arrears.
Hence, 21 separated executives filed the writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta which was allowed. In the appeal filed by HCL the case was transferred to this Hon'ble Tribunal for want of jurisdiction and thereafter the Applicants again approached the Division Bench of High Court against the Order of this Tribunal for referring the matter again to HCL. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition and expunged the partial order of this Tribunal. HCL filed SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed and thus HCL released the payment of pay revision arrear from 01/01/1997 to 30/11/1999 making the pay revision order effective from 01/01/1997.
Prior to the period of Pay Revision from 01.01.1997 two revisions took place - one vide Office Order dated 19.03.1991 (from 1.1.1987 to 31.12.1991 at page 57) and other vide Office Order dated 02.02.1996 (from 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1996 at page 61) when VRS employees were given full benefits of pay revision differences under all heads.
HCL vide its letter No. HCL/HR/14 dated 23.04.2007 proposed to the Government of India to approve payment of wage/salary arrears arising out of 1997 pay scale revision to the employees of HCL, VR separated employees and otherwise separated employees. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Mines vide letter No. 10/3/2004-Met.III dated 27th September 2007 conveyed its approval to the payment of arrears for the period from 01.08.2002 to 31.7.2004 to the employees of HCL, VR separated employees and otherwise separated employees but even after receipt of the approval HCL did not release payment to VR optees for the Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 O.A. 786 of 2016 reasons best known to them. In fact, denial of benefits of 1997 pay revision to VR optees is completely malafide, Illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
Even when the financial capacity of HCL improved and it was in a position to pay the legitimate dues to the VR optees, HCL management did not comply with the direction of the Government of India as above, and chose not to release pay revision benefits to the VR optees.
HCL also did not make even a whisper about the Government's approval in the reply filed on behalf of HCL and Chairman-cum-Managing Director in OA No. 786 of 2016 filed earlier or in the oral submission made before the Hon'ble Tribunal which is a clear case of suppression of facts. On the other hand, HCL has been claiming that once VR optees are released, there is no employer-employee relation as per Supreme Court judgment in the case of A.K. Bindal and Anr. -Vs- Union of India and Others which has no bearing on this case. In the said judgment the petitioners were employees of BIFR referred Companies and BIFR has specifically recommended for closure of the Company and BIFR also did not recommend revision of pay scales and thus scales of pay were not revised and employees were given VR benefits on liberal parameters recommended by BIFR.
That the similar sets of voluntarily retired employees who were working under the control of the Respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by non-consideration of their revision of pay as per order dated 17.04.2006, filed a writ application No.2548 of 2010, Civil Writ Petition No. 8623 of 2008 and Civil Writ Petition No.8640 of 2008 which was disposed of on 26.11.2018 by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and in para 8 a reference was made to the judgment passed in A.K. Bindal & Anr. -Vs-Union of India & Ors reported in 2003 5 SCC Page 163 where Hon'ble High Court has held that so far as the benefits which have been created in Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 O.A. 786 of 2016 relation to service already rendered, would continue to accrue as a vested right to a voluntarily retired person and the petitioners are entitled to the pay revision as per pay revision order at page 74 to the Original Application.
Supreme Court judgment in A.K. Bindal & Anr. -Vs- Union of Idia and Ors. is not applicable in this case as it relates to FCI & HFC which are BIFR referred companies. Every company has a separate V.R scheme with separate terms and conditions which may not be the same as the others. In the particular judgment also, the Hon'ble Court directed the company to pay ex-gratia payment in respect of employees on pay scale at 1.1.1987 and 1.1.1992 levels computed on their existing pay scales in accordance with the extant scheme which shall be increased by 100% and 50% respectively.
The case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association & Ors-Vs- State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2023 SCC online SC 100 relates to the implementation of 5th Pay Commission benefit which has no relation to the present case of re-fixation of pay of voluntarily retired employees wherein it has been clearly stipulated vide Order 17.04.2006 and 22.04.2006 that executives of Board level and below Board level are entitled to pay fixation with effect from 01.01.1997.
The other Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) like Coal India Limited (CIL), Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) etc. had extended the benefit of pay revision to the VR employees. The financial performance of HCL since the financial year 1997-98 till 2022-23 depicts a total accumulated gross profit and net profit of more than Rs.3210 & RS.1796 crores respectively. The Company is clearly in a position to meet its financial obligations. Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 O.A. 786 of 2016 Ld. Counsel for the applicant relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CWP No. 2548/2010 passed on 26.11.2018.
4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits as follows:
The applicant No.1 cannot affirm the original application stating himself as the president of HCL Ex-officers welfare forum, as a welfare forum cannot file an original applications on behalf of different applicants seeking benefits of pay revision of individual employees. Hence the instant original application is defective and bad for joinder of cause of action.
The applicants seeking the benefit of the circular being number HCL/PERS /9/37 dated 20.02.1995 (Annexure A-3) has misguided the Ld. Tribunal as the said circular was issued at the time when the pay revision of 1992 was pending in 1995 and same was given effect in 1996. All the applicants herein very much received the benefits of the said 1992 pay revision as it is admitted fact that the applicants voluntarily retired after 1998 and before 2002.So in any case the said circular issued in 1995 could not and has not mentioned about pay revision of 1997 which was actually given effect from 1.08.2004.
The applicants having opted for voluntary retirement scheme are not entitled to any revision of scale of pay having been given effect after such voluntary retirement as the jural relationship of the employer and employee between the Hindustan copper limited and the applicants have come to an end after the applicants accepted the voluntary retirement.
Though the scale of pay has been notionally fixed from 1.01.1997 as provided in clause 5.1 of the circular dated 22nd April 2006 however actual payment has been given from 1st August 2004 in the revised scale of pay.Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 O.A. 786 of 2016 However, on the date of filing of the said application the applicants do not have any right to arrears as the applicants had retired voluntarily in and before 2002.
The applicants having opted for VRS under the existing VRS scheme of the company and the said voluntary retirement having been accepted by HCL by giving all benefits to the applicants under the said scheme the applicants are estopped from claiming any further benefit of revisions of pay arising out of 1997 pay revision. The Hon'ble Apex court has time and again reiterated that VRS is a package deal of give and take. That is why in the business world it is known as golden handshake. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking he leaves all his right and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past right with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments:
i. A.K. Bindal and Another vs. Union of India and Others (2003) 5 SCC 163 para 33, 34 and 35 ii. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 100 para 40,41.
5. Heard the parties. Perused material on record.
6. Applicants were on the rolls of the company on 01/01/1997. They opted for Voluntary Retirement (VR) between 1998 and 2006. Pay revision w.e.f. Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 O.A. 786 of 2016 01.01.1997 was notified on 17/04/2006. The applicants claim benefit of this pay fixation which has been denied to them by the respondents. Detailed arguments for and against granting the applicants benefits of pay fixation have been advanced as recorded in the preceding paragraphs.
7. The issue is no longer res integra. On going through the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Writ Petition No. 2548/2010 passed on 26/11/2018, we find that a set of voluntarily retired executives of the respondent company's Khetri unit were granted the same benefit as claimed by the applicants herein. Para 22 and 23 of the said judgment is reproduced below:
"22. After having held so question arises as to what benefit can a voluntary retired employee receive under the settlement of 2006. So far as the employees who come in the category of voluntary retired under the voluntary retirement scheme, are concerned, all of them were on rolls as on 01.11.1997 till they were granted retirement their pay fixation is required to be notionally fixed and thus the benefits to voluntary retired under the voluntary retirement scheme would have to be notional fixed under the settlement scheme and the arrears on the basis of the notionally fixed salary will have to be calculated under the prevailing voluntary retirement scheme for release of voluntary retirement benefits as I have already stated in the forgoing paras, the voluntary retiral benefits are based on the salary being drawn by the concerned individual on the day when he is voluntary retiring. Thus viewed, salary is as already been revised on that date or his benefit to have been released on that date, by deeming fiction, the voluntary retiral benefits will also be required to be revised on the basis of the deemed revised salary. However, as noted above that the company has also released actual arrears to the employees for the period from 01.11.1997 upto 31.07.2004. If the fact is found to be correct, similar benefit of actual payment would also become entitled to the voluntary retirement employees and no distinction can be drawn.
23. Accordingly, in view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. The letter dated 12.02.2008 is quashed and set-aside. The respondents shall now release the benefits to the employees individually. Since there were different schemes floated for voluntary retirement. For the said purpose, the petitioners shall place before the respondent-Management its claim, each claim shall be examined in terms of the settlement dated 19.04.2006 and after conducting exercise of pay fixation, the voluntary retirement benefits shall be revised strictly in terms of the benefits to which the concerned employee was entitled to the benefits of the claims under which the concerned employee was granted VRS."Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 O.A. 786 of 2016 The applicants in this O.A are identically placed as the applicants in Civil Writ Petition No. 2548/2010 quoted above as they were also executives of HCL who took VR between 1998 and 2006 and were on the rolls of the company on 01/01/1997. Applicants herein too are aggrieved by the denial of benefits of pay revision effected from 01.01.1997.
8. Respondents on the other hand have cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Civil Appeal No. 778 of 2023 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1902 of 2019 decided on February 02, 2023. In this case, only the employees in service on the date of notification, i.e. 29.03.2010 were granted arrears of pay for the period between 01.01.2006 and 29.03.2010 arising out of pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006, leaving out those employees who either retired on superannuation, or died or took voluntary retirement between 01.01.2006 and 29.03.2010. Hon'ble Apex Court while granting relief to the employees who either retired on superannuation or died during the period specifically excluded those who had opted for VR during the period excluding them from the purview of the relief granted in the case.
Para 40 and 41 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is reproduced below:
"40. However, in the opinion of this court, employees who secured VRS benefits and left the service of MSFC voluntarily during this period, stand on a different footing. They cannot claim parity with those who worked continuously, discharged their functions, and thereafter superannuated. VRS employees chose to opt and leave the service of the corporation; they found the VRS offer beneficial to them. Apart from the normal terminal benefits they were entitled to, the additional amount each of them was given was an exgratia amount, equal to a month's salary for each completed year of service. Other retired employees were never given such amounts. This has been emphasized in A.K. Bindal v. Union of India (supra):
"The Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) which is sometimes called Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) is introduced by companies and industrial establishments in order to reduce the surplus staff and to Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 O.A. 786 of 2016 bring in financial efficiency. The office memorandum dated 5-5-2000 issued by the Government of India provided that for sick and unviable units, the VRS package of the Department of Heavy Industry will be adopted. Under this Scheme an employee is entitled to an ex gratia payment equivalent to 45 days' emoluments (pay + DA) for each completed year of service or the monthly emoluments at the time of retirement multiplied by the balance months of service left before the normal date of retirement, whichever is less. This is in addition to terminal benefits. The Government was conscious about the fact that the pay scales of some of the PSUs had not been revised with effect from 1-1-1992 and therefore it has provided adequate compensation in that regard in the second VRS which was announced for all Central public sector undertakings on 6-11-2001. Clause (a) of the Scheme reads as under:
(a) Ex gratia payment in respect of employees on pay scales at 1-
1-1987 and 1-1-1992 levels, computed on their existing pay scales in accordance with the extant Scheme, shall be increased by 100% and 50% respectively.
This shows that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in the business world it is known as "golden handshake". The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the 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. If the employee is still permitted to raise a grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale from a retrospective date, even after he has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount paid to him, the whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be totally frustrated."
41. For the above reasons, it is held that VRS employees cannot claim parity with others who retired upon achieving the age of superannuation. Likewise, those who ceased to be in employment, for the reason of termination, or their dismissal, etc., would not be entitled to the benefit of pay revision." It is noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its above judgment has relied on its earlier findings in A.K. Bindal and Another vs. Union of India and Others (20030 5 Supreme Court Cases 163. A.K. Bindal (supra) has been discussed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in its order in CWP 2548/2010 dated 26.11.2018 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the facts in A.K. Bindal (supra) are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances in the Civil Writ Petition No. Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 O.A. 786 of 2016 CWP 2548/2010 and the ratio in A.K. Bindal (supra) is not applicable in the CWP No. 2548/2010.
9. We have gone through the judgement in Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association (supra). This case involved a sick company with limited resources to pay arrears to all eligible employees/retirees. At no stage, was there any commitment or any expression of intention by the respondent company or its owner, the Government of Maharashtra that arrears will be paid to the retired or voluntarily retired employees who were in service on 01.01.2006. In the present O.A, on the other hand, there was a specific commitment by the Company in its circular dated 20/02/1995 that employees opting for VRS will be entitled to pay revision benefits if they were on roll on the date of effect of the pay revision. Though the respondents in the present case argued that the letter dated 20/02/1995 lost its validity once subsequent VR schemes were notified, its validity was upheld and it was held to be applicable in the case of petitioners by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Applicants in this O.A have also placed on record a letter of the Department of Public Enterprises dated 08/12/2000 which clarifies that public sector employees who opt for VRS will be entitled to the revised pay scales if they were in service on the day such revision takes effect. The applicants have also placed on record a copy of a letter dated 27/09/2007 to the then CMD/HCL approving payment of arrears arising out of 1997 Pay Revision to all employees including the VR separated employees for the period from 01.08.2003 to 31.07.2004. This letter indicates that the respondent Ministry as well as the Company recognizes the eligibility of the VR separated employees to receive the arrears arising out of Pay Revision. The respondent company is in good financial health and has been consistently making profit for several years now. Thus, the facts in Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex- Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 O.A. 786 of 2016 Employees Association (supra) are different from the facts in the present O.A, which are identical to the facts in CWP No. 2548/2010 of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. In our considered opinion, therefore, the order of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CWP No. 2548/2010 is applicable in the present case and the applicants in the present O.A are entitled to the same relief which has been granted by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court to the petitioners in CWP No. 2548/2010.
10. The applicants have also relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT 45 of 2020 to claim the relief. Relevant parts of this judgment are reproduced below:
(emphasis added) "The order of the tribunal and our order are confined to the employees before the tribunal and the legal heirs of those who have already died. This order does not take into account the alleged claim of the other employees.
In those circumstances, we delete and expunge paragraph 12 of the impugned order of the tribunal and direct that the arrear payment of the employees, who approached the tribunal, between 1st January 1997 and 30th November 1999 be paid to them or the legal heirs of the deceased applicants, within 31st March 2022, out of which half of the amount should be paid by 30th September 2021."
From a plain reading of the underlined part of the judgment quoted above, it is amply clear that the operative part of the order is applicable only to the applicants who were before the Tribunal in O.A No. 714 of 2018. The applicants herein were not parties to the said O.A. The applicants cannot claim the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT No. 45 of 2020. Further, an SLP against the Hon'ble High Court's judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court which took cognizance of total financial liability of Rs. 65,67,856/- only in the matter. This amount of Rs. 65,67,856/- is the total amount required to pay the arrears for the period from 01.01.1997 to 30.11.1999 only in respect of applicants Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 O.A. 786 of 2016 in O.A No. 714 of 2018. It is thus clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court too upheld the Hon'ble High Court's order in respect of the applicants in O.A No. 714 of 2018 only. In view of the specific observations of the Hon'ble High Court in its order in WPCT 45 of 2020 and of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) Nos. 15098-
15099/2021, the applicants herein, not being the applicants in OA 714 of 2018 cannot claim similar relief on the ground of being similarly placed with the applicants in O.A No. 714 of 2020.
11. As observed in Para 9 above, in our opinion, the applicants in this O.A are identically placed as the applicants in CWP 2548/2010 of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. C. Lalitha (AIRONLINE 2006 SC 209) has observed:
"Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently."
12. In view of the discussion above, we deem it fit to extend the same benefit to the applicants in this O.A as were granted by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CWP No. 2548/2010 to the petitioners. Each of the applicants will individually place before the respondents his claim within a period of 60 days from the date of this order. Respondents will examine each claim in terms of the settlement dated 19.04.2006 and after conducting the exercise of pay fixation in terms of the pay revision made effective from 01.01.1997, the applicants will be granted benefits due to them after their voluntary retirement. The applicants will also be paid arrears of pay due to them from 01.01.1997 to the date of their retirement at par with the serving employees of the company. The entire exercise culminating in Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 19 O.A. 786 of 2016 the payment of admissible arrears to the applicants will be completed by the respondents within a period of 120 days after receipt of the individual claim from the applicants as per directions given above.
13. O.A is disposed of. No costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta (Sen))
Member (A) Member (J)
DB
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.04 12:42:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0