Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. According to ITDC, applying the DPE Guidelines pertaining to VRS, which were invoked at the relevant point of time, each of the Respondent No.1 employees was paid the dues which included payment of 50% ex-gratia amount following CDA pattern of pay scales at 1st January, 1986 level. A further affidavit was filed by the ITDC before the learned Single Judge on 8th January, 2018 explaining that in terms of the DPE Guidelines concerning VRS calculation, the daily salary was computed on the basis of 30 days in a month and not 26 days, which was under the pre-revised DPE Guidelines. It was further explained that the VRS compensation was arrived at by calculating 35 days for completed years of service and 25 days for the remaining years till the usual superannuation date.

19. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra that the learned Single Judge misconstrued the purport of the memorandum dated 25th August, 1987. According to him the said memorandum had been issued for the purposes of clarification in respect of employees recruited by the joint venture as also the ITDC officers who were in the deputation with the HNA at the relevant time. For all other purposes, employees of HNA had throughout been treated as employees of CPSE and were receiving CDA pay scales.

20. Mr. Mishra submitted that earlier the Respondent No.1 employees approached this Court with writ petitions on the basis that the DPE Guidelines applied to them. When ITDC pointed out in its counter affidavit that in terms of the latest DPE Guidelines of 26th October 2004, they would be entitled to only 50% ex- gratia and calculation of daily salary on the basis of 30 days in a month and not 26 days, the Respondent No.1 employees changed their stand and maintained that they were to be paid State Government pay scales. He submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that each of the employees was entitled to further 50% ex-gratia which was inadmissible in terms of the applicable DPE Guidelines. He reiterated the decision in ITI Limited (supra) to the effect that once a VRS had been accepted and payment had been made, it cannot be reopened.

25. It appears to this Court that the plea that the Respondent No.1 employees had to be considered as having received State Government pay scales was a stand taken only after the affidavits of the present Appellants before the learned Single Judge made it explicit that the VRS dues had been calculated applying the latest DPE Guidelines as on the date of the VRS. The prayers in the writ petitions were about the applicability of the DPE Guidelines. If HNA was not a CPSE, the question of applying the DPE Guidelines even earlier to the one issued on 26th October, 2004 would not arise.

26. In fact, before this Court it was sought to be argued that the earlier DPE Guidelines of 5th May 2000, 8th December 2000, 6th November, 2001 and 28th February, 2002 were somehow still applicable and since they provided for 100% ex-gratia, each of the Respondent No.1employees would be entitled to 100% ex-gratia.

27. Once it is clear that it is the CDA pay scales which were extended to Respondent No.1 employees and that they were governed by the DPE Guidelines as regards VRS calculation, then the question to be asked is what are the relevant DPE Guidelines applicable to Respondent No.1 employees who have agreed for VRS?