Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2335 (RAJ)

R. Gupta v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation

2019-08-29

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- "(i) directing the respondent to make pay fixation of the petitioner under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.09.2006 and to pay difference of the ex-gratia amount of 34 months with interest thereon @ 18% p.a. (ii) directing the respondent to revise the retirement benefits of the petitioner after his pay fixation in the Revised Pay Scale Rules 2008 and ex-gratia arrears thereof with interest @ 18% p.a. and other consequential benefits as per VRS circular dated 27.09.2006. (iii) any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be pleased in favour of the petitioner including award of cost of this writ petition." 2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Rajasthan Financial Corporation in the year, 1976. The petitioner got voluntary retired, as per the Circular dated 27.09.2006 of the respondent-R.F.C. way back on 31.10.2006. 3. The bone of contention, in the present case, is the applicability of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Staff (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 2008 (herein after to be referred as the Rules of 2008) and the benefits arising out of it. 4. Mr. R.K. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-R.F.C. has pointed out that the Rules of 2008 itself reflects that the same were come into effect w.e.f. 01.09.2006 and since the petitioner has admittedly voluntary retired on 31.10.2006, therefore, the benefits of the Rules of 2008 has to be passed on to the petitioner by appropriate fixation in the revised pay scales. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 14.10.2008 passed by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Jaipur, the relevant portion of the same reads as under:- "The Board of Directors in its meeting held on 08.10.2008 has considered the Pay Scales of the Employees of the Corporation on the lines of the State Government and approved the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Staff (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 2008, which have come into force w.e.f. 01.09.2006. The Rajasthan Financial Corporation Staff (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 2008 is enclosed herewith as Appendix-I alongwith Annexure from "A" to "C." The pay of all the employees is to be fixed in the Revised Pay Scales w.e.f. 01.09.2006 or the effective date of option. The Rajasthan Financial Corporation Staff (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 2008 is enclosed herewith as Appendix-I alongwith Annexure from "A" to "C." The pay of all the employees is to be fixed in the Revised Pay Scales w.e.f. 01.09.2006 or the effective date of option. Proforma of option form is also enclosed. The procedure for fixation of the pay in the revised pay scale will be followed mutatis-mutandis as given in the RFC Staff (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 2008. All fixations of existing employees and employee retired on or after 01.09.2006, shall be made at HO (P&A) and difference of due drawn statement (arrear statement) of Branch Office/Sub Office/A&I Offices Staff is to be prepared/paid at respective offices. Fixation of Pay is to be made on the basis of Basic Pay of the employee on 01.09.2006 or the effective date of option. Detailed guidelines have been mentioned in the RFC (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 2008. Your are advised to send the option form of each and every employees alongwith Service Book duly completed in all respect." 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that two issues came up before the respondent-RFC. The said issues raised by the respondent-RFC reads as follows:- "(a) Whether, R. Gupta, Deputy General Manager (retired) is entitled for the fixation benefits, as per the RFC (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 2008? (b) Whether, R. Gupta is also entitled for payment of any arrears of pay and allowances for the period between 01.09.2006 to 31.10.2006 consequent upon the pay fixation under the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008?" 7. The answer given by the respondent-RFC themselves was that R. Gupta was a regular employee of the Corporation on the date of applicability of the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 i.e. w.e.f. 01.09.2006 and, hence, he was certainly entitled for pay scale benefits as on 01.09.2006. 8. The second question was answered by the respondent-RFC by saying that in light of Rule 27 of the Revised Pay Scales Rules, 2008 no arrears of pay and allowance on any account shall accrue to R. Gupta for the period between 01.09.2006 to 31.10.2006 i.e. the date of voluntary retirement. 9. 8. The second question was answered by the respondent-RFC by saying that in light of Rule 27 of the Revised Pay Scales Rules, 2008 no arrears of pay and allowance on any account shall accrue to R. Gupta for the period between 01.09.2006 to 31.10.2006 i.e. the date of voluntary retirement. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one K.M. Bhandari Deputy General Manager, who applied for voluntary retirement under the same Circular as of the petitioner was voluntary retired by the Corporation w.e.f. 15.01.2007 and has been given all benefits, as per Rules of 2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that another similarly situated employee i.e. Mr. S.K. Malhotra Deputy General Manager also sought voluntary retirement under the voluntary Retirement Scheme as of the petitioner, as per Circular dated 27.09.2006 w.e.f. 15.06.2008 and was given the same benefits as per Rules of 2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits of the Rules of 2008 and at best the respondent-RFC may not extend the arrears for the period between 01.09.2006 to 31.10.2006. However, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fixation was to be carried out in the Revised Pay Scale as the petitioner was in service on 01.09.2006 when the Rules of 2008 came into force. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also relied upon an Order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 300/2017, Sanjay Behari and Others vs. IFCI decided on 17.01.2019, the relevant portion i.e. Paras 4, 8 and 25 of the aforesaid order, reads as follows:- "4. Voluntary Retirement Schemes have been introduced by IFCI from time to time. On 1st February, 2008, IFCI introduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2008 (hereinafter referred to as VRS 2008). Under this Scheme, on acceptance of the application of the eligible employees, they were entitled to several benefits including pension, under Pension Regulations, 1993 provided in Para 7 of the Scheme. The present Appellants applied under the aforesaid scheme and were relieved from duty on 25th February, 2008. At the time, the Appellants and all other employees of IFCI were in RBI pay scales (revised upto 1st November, 2002) and accordingly from March 2008, IFCI commenced payment of pension to the Appellants commensurate to said RBI pay scales. The present Appellants applied under the aforesaid scheme and were relieved from duty on 25th February, 2008. At the time, the Appellants and all other employees of IFCI were in RBI pay scales (revised upto 1st November, 2002) and accordingly from March 2008, IFCI commenced payment of pension to the Appellants commensurate to said RBI pay scales. All other retirement dues such as Gratuity and Leave Encashment were also paid likewise. 8. In July 2014, the Appellants became aware of the implementation of the revised RBI pay scales and accordingly wrote to CEO and MD, IFCI, requesting that benefit of pay revision should also be granted to them in respect of their pensionary benefits. In response thereto, IFCI vide letter dated 28th July, 2014 stated that there was no pay revision in IFCI w.e.f. 1st November, 2007 and additionally relied upon Paras 9.4 and 9.12 of VRS 2008 to deny the Appellants the benefit of the pay revision. Thereafter Appellants made representations to the Board of Director of IFCI, the same were rejected on the ground that IFCI had opted a Cost to Company structure of pay and allowances from August 2008 to October 2013 and that IFCI had not changed the pay scale during the aforesaid period. The Appellants agitated their grievances by making further representations to the Government Director of IFCI and Joint Secretary, DoFS, however the same were also rejected. Aggrieved with the decision of IFCI, denying them the benefit of pay revision, Appellants filed W.P. (C) No. 1552/2017, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 20th February, 2017. 25. There is no doubt that retrospective increase in salary is given to those who are still in service at that relevant time or who had retired in normal circumstances. However the Appellants in the present case would have the benefit of additional pension on account of the fact that Respondents have revised the salary with retrospective effect and also extended benefit of such pay revision for the retirees of the earlier VRS 2000-01. In view of the above discussion we hold that on the date of Appellants' retirement i.e. 25th February 2008, they were entitled to retrospective pay revision w.e.f. 1st November, 2007. Accordingly, we issue a mandamus to the IFCI to revise the pension of the Appellants w.e.f 1st November, 2007. In view of the above discussion we hold that on the date of Appellants' retirement i.e. 25th February 2008, they were entitled to retrospective pay revision w.e.f. 1st November, 2007. Accordingly, we issue a mandamus to the IFCI to revise the pension of the Appellants w.e.f 1st November, 2007. The orders fixing the revised pension in terms of the present judgment be issued within four weeks. As a consequence of the above, the arrears be paid to the Petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from today. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms. No orders as to costs." 11. Mrs. Manjoo Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-R.F.C. however, submits that the applicability of the Rules of 2008 has been decided but have to be given affect to w.e.f. 01.01.2007 by the respondent-State and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for any benefits on being voluntary retired on 31.10.2006. Counsel appearing for the respondent-RFC also submits that the petitioner took voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.2006 as per his own request and on thorough examination of the issue by the Corporation as well as State, it has been decided that the benefits of Rules of 2008 cannot be made applicable to the present petitioner. Counsel for the respondent-RFC submits that a specific question was framed by the respondent-RFC vide Annexure-R/1 for which the answer was sought from the State Government. The said question reads as follows:- "1. Whether fixation in revised pay is to be made of those employees who retired from 01.09.2006 to 31.12.2006 (both days inclusive)? If yes then the arrear of terminal benefits like leave encashment, gratuity and VRS ex-gratia et. Are to be made on account of revised pay or not?" 12. The answer to the said question given by the State Government is as follows:- "1. As per Rule 27 no arrear of pay and allowance on any account shall accrue to an employee whether existing or appointed between 1.9.2006 to 31.12.2006, for the period upto 31.12.2006. Accordingly, no benefits may be entitled for the employees retired during this period." 13. Counsel appearing for the respondent-RFC submits that in pursuance of the decision taken by the State Government on 07.11.2014 the aforementioned position has been retreated and the benefit has to be given only for the persons, who were in service w.e.f. 01.01.2007. 14. Accordingly, no benefits may be entitled for the employees retired during this period." 13. Counsel appearing for the respondent-RFC submits that in pursuance of the decision taken by the State Government on 07.11.2014 the aforementioned position has been retreated and the benefit has to be given only for the persons, who were in service w.e.f. 01.01.2007. 14. The relevant portion of the order dated 07.11.2014 reads as follows:- ^^NBs osru vk;ksx dh flQkfj'kksa ds i'pkr~ jkT; deZpkfj;ksa ds osrueku foRr foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk iŒ 11¼7½ foRr@fu;e@2008 fnukad 12-09-2008 }kjk fnukad 01-09-2006 ls la'kksf/kr fd;s x;s Fks vkSj bu dkfeZdksa dk fnukad 01-09- 2006 ls 31 -12-2006 rd osru fu/kkZj.k us'kuy vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k rFkk la'kksf/kr osrueku ds vk/kkj ij osru dk Hkqxrku fnukad 01-01-2007 ls fd;k x;kA blh vk/kkj ij foRr foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k iŒ 12¼3½ foRr@fu;e@2008 fnukad 12-09-2006 ds fcUnq la[;k 4 }kjk tks jkT; deZpkjh fnukad 01-09- 2006 ls 31 -12-2006 dh vof/k esa lsokfuo`r gq, mudks Hkh fnukad 01-09- 2006 ls 31 -12-2006 dh vof/k esa isa'ku vftZr ugha ekuh xbZ rFkk la'kksf/kr isa'ku dk okLrfod Hkqxrku fnukad 01-01-2007 ls fd;k x;kA ;gh ÁfØ;k fnukad 01-09-2006 ls iwoZ lsokfuo`r isa'ku@ikfjokfjd isa'kujksa dh isa'ku la'kksf/kr djus ds laca/k esa viukbZ xbZA vr% tks deZpkjh fnukad 01-09- 2006 ls 31 -12-2006 dh vof/k esa lsokfuo`r gq, mudks Hkh la'kksf/kr osrueku ds dkj.k xzsP;wVh ,oa dE;wVs'ku ds vUrj dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku dk Áko/kku ugha gSA** 15. Counsel appearing for the respondent-RFC further submits that the petitioner cannot be permitted to compare himself with the case of Mr. K.M. Bhandari and Mr. S.K. Malhotra, as they both voluntary retired way back on 15.01.2007 and 15.06.2008 respectively and, thus, they were above the cut-off-date i.e. 01.01.2007. 16. Counsel appearing for the respondent-RFC has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. and Others vs. A.P. Pensioners' Association and Others, (2005) 13 SCC 161 . 17. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment i.e Paras 36 to 40 read as follows:- "36. 16. Counsel appearing for the respondent-RFC has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. and Others vs. A.P. Pensioners' Association and Others, (2005) 13 SCC 161 . 17. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment i.e Paras 36 to 40 read as follows:- "36. In State of Punjab and Others vs. Amar Nath Goyal and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 754 , upon consideration of a large number of decisions, this Court opined that the decision of a State to limit the benefits only to employees who retire or died on or after a particular date upon calculating the financial implications thereof was neither irrational nor arbitrary. It was observed: "28. It is trite that, the final recommendations of the Pay Commission were not ipso facto binding on the Government, as the Government had to accept and implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission consistent with its financial position. This is precisely what the Government did. Such an action on the part of the Government can neither be characterised as irrational, nor as arbitrary so as to infringe Article 14 of the Constitution." 37. Mr. Lalit placed strong reliance on D.S. Nakara and Others vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 for the proposition that the financial implication for implementation of the recommendations of PRC has not much relevance. Therein, the Constitution Bench came to the conclusion that the increased liability upon the said judgment is not too high to be unbearable or such as would have detracted the Government from covering the old pensioners under the scheme. 38. The decisions of this Court which have been noticed in Amar Nath Goyal (supra) categorically point out that financial implication is one of the relevant considerations for the State to deny certain benefits to a class of employees who retire on or before a particular date. 39. It is, therefore, beyond any shadow of doubt that the financial implication is a relevant criterion for the State Government to determine as to what benefits can be granted pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendations made by the PRC. The PRC also said that while revision of pay shall take effect from 1.7.1998, the monetary benefit would be payable only from 1.4.1999. The PRC also said that while revision of pay shall take effect from 1.7.1998, the monetary benefit would be payable only from 1.4.1999. If monetary benefit was payable only from 1.4.1999, all rights to get the benefits computed on the basis of the revised scale of pay would only be for the purpose of payment of pay with effect from 1.4.1999 or payment of the recurring amount of pension with effect from that date. 40. Clause (4) does not make any exception so far as payment of actual monetary benefit is concerned for the purpose of payment of gratuity or otherwise. Had that been so, the rule would have stated expressly. On the other hand, GO No. 157 dated 16.9.1999 fixed the maximum limit of gratuity under rule 46 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules with effect from 1.4.1999 only." 18. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Rules of 2008, as reproduced herein above and as adopted by the Corporation clearly stipulates the pay scales of the employees of the Corporation on the lines of the State Government and approved as per Rajasthan Financial Corporation Staff (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 2008 have been given effect to w.e.f. 01.09.2006 and, therefore, all the employees were to be fixed in the Revised Pay Scale w.e.f. 01.09.2006 or effective date of option. 19. This Court also finds that merely by a policy decision the respondent-RFC cannot escape the applicability of the Rules of 2008 where the cut-off-date for its coming into effect is clearly mentioned as 01.09.2006 and it is an admitted fact that the petitioner voluntary retired on 31.10.2006. The order dated 07.11.2014, which seems to be an interpretation of the authority of the Finance Department regarding the applicability of the Rules of 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2007 cannot be allowed to override the Rules of 2008 itself. 20. The precedent law cited by both the parties is not directly applicable in the present case and shall have no bearing in the adjudication. 21. This Court, thus, finds that by making a policy decision pertaining to the Rules of 2008 the respondent-RFC has come out with a cut-off-date of 01.01.2007, whereas Rules itself prescribed for the cut-off-date of 01.09.2006. The precedent law cited by both the parties is not directly applicable in the present case and shall have no bearing in the adjudication. 21. This Court, thus, finds that by making a policy decision pertaining to the Rules of 2008 the respondent-RFC has come out with a cut-off-date of 01.01.2007, whereas Rules itself prescribed for the cut-off-date of 01.09.2006. Therefore, the petitioner, who was a regular employee of the Corporation on the date of applicability of the revised pay scale Rules, 2008 i.e. 01.09.2006 is entitled for the pay fixation and all related benefits as per his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.2006. 22. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed and the respondent-RFC is directed to make the necessary fixation of the petitioner, as per Revised Pay Scale Rules, 2008 within a period of three months from today.