Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Page 1795

1. These batch of writ petitions involve determination of common questions of fact and law; they were bunched with consent of counsel for the parties and heard together. WP 5198-99/05 and WP 4827/05 have been filed by the electricity companies (hereafter called 'DISCOMS'). The other petitions were preferred by employees who sought severance on the basis of the schemes formulated by the petitioner DISCOMS.

2. The question requiring decision by the Court in these proceedings is the liability for payment of pension and terminal benefits on the basis of the Special Voluntary Separation Scheme (hereafter called 'the Scheme') formulated in almost identical terms by the DISCOMS, namely, the New Delhi Power Limited ('NDPL'); BSES Rajdhani Ltd ('BSES') and BSES Yamuna Power Ltd ('BYPL') on 29.11.03 and 18.12.2003. The DISCOMS allege that the liability to pay such pension under the Schemes, falls on the DVB Employees Terminal Benefit Fund, a Trust incorporated under provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882(hereafter referred to as 'the Pension Trust') to the extent it has resources for the purpose and the liabilities to the extent it is unfunded, are of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereafter called ' the GNCT'). The claim in the petitions filed by employees is that the DISCOMS are liable to pay pension and terminal dues which have not been disbursed to them despite acceptance of their offers and their voluntary retirement from the service.

Vacancies caused by Voluntary separation would not be filled up.
Page 1804

10. The Scheme formulated by BSES Power Ltd., namely, the SVRS, dated 18.12.03 reads as follows:

No. HR/BRPL/2003-04/6VRS-001 Dated 18 Dec. 2003 OFFICE ORDER SPECIAL VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME - 2003 The Management has decided to introduce Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SVRS) - 2003 for all regular employees working in BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL) as per the details mentioned below:
1. SCOPE and ELIGIBILITY 1.1 The Scheme shall apply to all the regular employees of BRPL, who have completed 10 years of service from the date of joining Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) or have attained the age of 40 years as on the date of this Office Order.

16. The BSES and BYPL, in their pleadings states that it paid SVRS benefits to the tune of Rs. 328.00 crores as ex gratia to 4352 employees opting for it. It is averred that the second component, namely, the terminal benefits were payable by the Trust which was requested to disburse the payments by a letter dated 31.12.03. It is averred that the Trust, through a letter dated 16.01.04 stated that the exact implication and details of liability cast upon the fund due to SVRS was being worked out by the actuary. The Trust took the position that its Terminal benefits fund was a Superannuation Fund and that payment to VRS retirees could not be made out of it. On 29.01.04, the Chairman and Managing Director, Delhi Power Co. Ltd. who is also Principal Secretary, Department of Power, GNCT mentioned about inadequacy of the initial corpus of the fund to pay the additional amounts on account of the SVRS. It is also averred that on 10.02.04 again the Trust took the position that it was not liable to pay any amounts towards liabilities arising on account of the VRS opted for by the employees under the schemes formulated by the DISCOMS.

Page 1812

32. It was contended that the internal correspondence between the DISCOMS, particularly BSES and the Trust and DPCL showed that the scheme was approved. Reliance was placed upon the letter of Shri Jagdish Sagar dated 20.9.2003 in this regard. The Board resolutions by which the SVRS were approved had been agreed to by the nominee directors of the GNCT. Counsel also contended that BSES and BYPL had by letters dated 19.12.2003 sought clarifications from the Trust as to whether as per the schemes, extra 5 years weightage could be given, in accordance with Rule 48-B of the CCS pension Rules. The Trust had replied on 29.12.2003, in the affirmative. In the light of these facts the volte face by the Trust and the GNCT that they were not liable, was contrary to their understanding. In any case both were estopped from raising such contention.