Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1380 (MP)

VANITA BORAKAR v. STATE OF M. P.

2014-10-28

R.S.JHA

body2014
ORDER : R.S. Jha, J. The petitioner who is working as a Draftsman in the establishment of the respondent M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. has filed this petition claiming parity of pay and emoluments as given to the State Government employees in accordance with the Revision of Pay Rules, 1990. It is submitted that the petitioner's claim was favourably recommended by the Board of Directors but the State Government by its decision dated 10-9-2000 has rejected the recommendation of the Board of Director. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 10-9-2000 by incorporating amendment in the petition. 2. The respondent No. 2 has filed a return and stated that the petitioner has alternative statutory efficacious remedy of approaching the labour Court under the provisions of Industrial Law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of R.S.R.T. Corporation v. Krishnakant, 1995 (5) SCC 77. The respondent No. 2 by way of preliminary objection has also stated that the petitioner has already availed of the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme and therefore in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Bindal and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2003 SC 2189 , she cannot claim any right regarding enhancement of pay scale etc. The fact that the petitioner has taken V.R.S. is undisputed. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Bindal (supra) has held as under:-- "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." 4. 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." 4. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, I find substance in the preliminary objections raised by the respondent as the petitioner in the instant case had undisputedly taken VRS before filing of the petition and therefore, she cannot subsequently turn around and claim higher pay scale, emoluments and benefit in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the claim made in the petition filed by the petitioner regarding her entitlement of higher pay scale, etc. the petition is dismissed in view of the preliminary objections raised by the respondent No. 1 and law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.