Full Judgment
1. Heard both sides.
The petitioners, employees of the Eastern Coalfields Limited, retired under a voluntary retirement scheme. They opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme based on the terms of the scheme. The retirements were accepted and they actually retired on 17.9.1994. They were paid the benefits in terms of the scheme. At that time, National Coal Wage Agreement IV was applicable and accordingly, the benefit under the scheme like gratuity, provident fund etc were paid to the petitioners on the basis of the basic pay drawn by them under the National Coal Wage Agreement IV Scheme. The benefit were calculated on the basis and paid.
2. After the petitioners retired under the scheme, the Eastern Coalfields Limited adopted National Coal Wage Agreement V in the year 1996. That agreement was to have effect from 1.7.1991. Based on that agreement, the difference in wages and gratuity were paid to the petitioners by the Eastern Coalfields Limited. The Eastern Coalfields Limited did not pay any enhanced ex-gratia payment contemplated by the scheme on the basis that the payment has already been made as per the scheme and nothing remained to be paid. The petitioners claiming that they are entitled to an enhancement of the ex-gratia payment also, filed this writ petition, claiming that the ex-gratia payment should be calculated on the basis of National Coal Wage Agreement V and the difference be paid to the petitioners. The company took the stand that the retirement was under a voluntary retirement scheme, the scheme governed the conditions under which the retirement took place and that on the terms of the scheme, the amounts due have been paid. The company relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Maithon Toppo v. Heavy Engineering Corporation, 2000 (1) PLJR 1046. The petitioners in support of their claim relied on a circular letter Annexure 1, said to have been issued by the General Manager (Personnel), according to which all such employees whose services are governed by the National Coal Wage Agreement Scheme and who had either retired or ceased to be in service after 1.7.1991, would be eligible for their terminal benefits in terms of the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement V. The learned Single Judge felt that the correctness of the Division Bench decision relied on by the Company should be examined and referred the case the Division Bench.
3. We find from the decision in Maithon Toppo v. Heavy Engineering Corporation, 2000 (1) PLJR 1046 that the substantial view adopted in that decision was that the rights and obligations flow from the very scheme itself and based on the acceptance of the terms of the scheme, and in that situation, it is not open to a person retiring under the scheme to raise claims based on any scheme subsequently adopted. The argument that such persons could not claim benefits which were brought into existence after their retirement, was accepted by the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the communication Annexure 1, which according to him supports the claim under National Coal Wage Agreement V event, in the case of employees who had retired after 1.7.1991. He contended that this letter must be taken to clarify, modify or revise the voluntary retirement scheme adopted by the company and accepted by the petitioners.
4. As indicated by the Division Bench, the scheme of voluntary retirement is based on a contract and the parties are governed by its terms. We see no reason to differ from that view adopted by the Division Bench. Moreover, we find that the said view finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Vice Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. and Anr. v. R. Varaprasad and Ors., 2003 (4) Supreme Today 245. wherein the Supreme Court has held that when the employees have opted for VRS on their own without any compulsion knowing fully well about the Scheme, guidelines and circulars governing the same, it is not open to them to make any claim contrary to the terms accepted. It is a matter of contract between the Corporation and the employees. It is not for the Courts to re write the terms of the contract, which were clear to the contracting parties, as indicated in the guidelines and circulars governing them under which the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was floated. The terminal benefits and financial package available under the scheme are to be calculated up to the cut-off date fixed for accepting the applications of the employees and not up to the date of their actual relieving from service. Hence the relevant date for the purpose of calculation of terminal benefits and benefits of VRS to the respondents was the cut-off date fixed. According to us, the ratio of this decision indicates that the parties are governed by the Scheme as it existed as on the date of their retirement under the scheme. Under the scheme, it is not open to the petitioners to raise further claims based on any revision that may have been made subsequent to that date, even if it is to have retrospective effect. In the case on hand, we may notice that the company had itself calculated the difference in wages and gratuity under National Coal Wage Agreement V and paid them to the petitioners even though they had retired under the scheme when National Coal Wage Agreement IV was in operation in the company. In the light of the ratio of the Division Bench, as referred to above, we are satisfied that the ex-gratia compensation payable to the petitioners is governed by the circulars, as they existed on the date of their retirement and not based on any subsequent circular or revision.
We dismiss the writ petition.