AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.
Present appeal is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, was partly decreed. Brief facts of the case are that suit was filed by the plaintiffs namely Chanda son of Shri Lekh Ram, Neki son of Shri Ram Chander and Hardev Singh son of Shri Arjun Singh. Since the first appeal filed by the defendants appellants had been allowed by the learned first appellate court qua Neki and Hardev Singh, facts in respect of them need not be recorded here. Chanda-plaintiff/respondent was appointed on daily wages basis in the Central State Farm Corporation, Hisar, on 1.11.1980 (Central State Farm at Hisar). Learned counsel for the appellant has clarified that Central State Farm was a unit of State Farms Corporation of India Limited now known as ''National Seeds Corporation Limited'' (hereinafter referred to as defendants). Services of plaintiff were regularised w.e.f. 8.5.1997. When plaintiff was still serving with the defendants, Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short "VRS") came to be introduced and the same was circulated vide order dated 10.3.2000. Plaintiff opted for the VRS and his option was accepted by the defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff was relieved from service on 4.4.2001. However, after his retirement from service on VRS, plaintiff served a legal notice dated 6.10.2009 on the defendants, demanding the alleged balance amount, which was admissible him after proper calculation of his retiral dues. When his claim was not accepted, plaintiff filed the suit.
Having been served in the suit, defendants filed their written statement taking more than one preliminary objections including that the suit was time barred. Claim of plaintiff was denied on merits as well.
On completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-
Whether the plaintiffs are legally entitled to get their retirement benefits like gratuity, Ex-gratia, Leave Encashment amount, wages of notice period as per Voluntarily retirement scheme from the defendants alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement of plaintiffs till its realization? OPP
Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred? OPD
Whether civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
Relief.
To substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has duly proved his case. Accordingly, suit was partly decreed issuing appropriate directions to the defendants, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.11.2013. Feeling aggrieved, defendants filed their first appeal, which was partly allowed only qua plaintiffs Neki and Hardev Singh, noticed hereinabove. First appeal was dismissed qua plaintiff-respondent Chanda by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide impugned judgment dated 30.4.2014. Hence this second appeal, at the hands of defendants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that suit was hopelessly time barred. Judgment in Hakam Ali v. State Farm Corporation of India Limited and another rendered by the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3005 of 2002, decided on 4.8.2008, will not provide a fresh cause of action to the plaintiff because his suit had already become time barred. He next contended that the retiral benefits of the plaintiff were calculated as per the terms and conditions of VRS, which was accepted by the plaintiff, without raising any protest. In such a situation, suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable because he had already been paid whatever amount was found due in his favour. He concluded by submitting that since both the learned courts below have misdirected themselves, while not appreciating the true factual aspect of the matter as well as the terms and conditions of VRS, the impugned judgments and decrees were not sustainable in law. In support of his contentions, he relies on a judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla Vs. Hargovind Jasraj and Another, . He prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees, by allowing the present appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of me case and giving thoughtful consideration to me arguments advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short). To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
As per the amended terms and conditions of VRS, plaintiff was entitled for compensation in the form of salary of 35 days, for every completed year of service rendered by him with the defendants appellants. It is also a matter of record that plaintiff had about 21 years of service to his credit Plaintiff was working as Class-IV employee. Whatever amount was calculated and paid by the defendants-appellants, the same was accepted by the plaintiff. No objection or protest would be expected from a Class-IV employee like the plaintiff, because he was not aware about the niceties and conditions of VRS in the true sense of the word. Whatever amount was paid, he accepted and went home.
Matter remained sub-judice before High Court of Rajasthan in Hakam Ali''s case (supra), which came to be decided on 4.8.2008. SLP filed by the appellants against the said judgment has also been dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the judgment in Hakam Ali''s case (supra) has attained finality. The moment plaintiff came to know about the judgment in Hakam Ali''s case (supra), interpreting; VRS in favour of the employees like the plaintiff, he immediately approached the defendant authorities by serving them with a legal notice dated 6.10.2009.
Since the prayer made by the plaintiff was not accepted by the defendants, he was fully justified to approach the learned civil court by filing the present suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction, directing the respondents to recalculate all the amount of compensation as per the law laid down by Rajasthan High Court in the judgment rendered in Hakam Ali''s case (supra). Learned courts below have rightly followed the law laid down by Rajasthan High Court in Hakam Ali''s case (supra), while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that both the learned courts below have rightly appreciated the true facts of the case as well as the principles of law applicable thereof and the impugned judgments deserve to be upheld.
Relevant directions issued by Rajasthan High Court in Hakam Ali''s case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:-
"The Voluntary Retirement Scheme provides for ex-gratia payment equal to emoluments determined for each completed year of service. The term ex-gratia in the scheme concern nowhere refers the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In general terms, ex-gratia is something that has been done voluntarily out of kindness or grace. In the instant matter, the State Forms Corporation, while introducing a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, offered ex-gratia to the employees seeking voluntary retirement prior to the actual date of actual term of service. The stand of the respondents that ex-gratia is required to be determined as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act is not at all supported by the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 also nowhere refers the term ex gratia. The respondent No. 3, therefore, were required to determine ex-gratia payment under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme by taking into consideration monthly emoluments (Pay + DA) last drawn by the petitioner. The bifurcation of the term of service into the regular service and the service rendered as daily wager is perfectly unknown or stranger with the Voluntary Retirement Scheme extended under the Circular dated 10.03.2000 and as amended subsequently. The determination of ex-gratia by bifurcation of the service, therefore, is illegal.
Accordingly, the petition for writ is allowed and the petitioner is declared entitled to get ex-gratia under the applicable Voluntary Retirement Scheme by taking into consideration the emoluments last drawn by him. The respondents, therefore, are directed to determine the ex-gratia payment relating to the petitioner by taking into consideration the last wages drawn by him and further to make payment of the same within a period of two months from today. The respondents shall also make the payment of interest on the arrears of the ex-gratia payment @ 65% per annum."
It is also a matter of record that VRS was silent on the method of calculation of compensation. As per the amended VRS dated 29.8.2000 Ex. D5, compensation would be in the form of salary of 35 days for every completed year of service. However, it was no where mentioned or clarified in the VRS that salary of which 35 days shall be taken into consideration, for the purpose of arriving at any particular figure for compensation. In the absence of any explicit condition provided in VRS, it has been very rightly interpreted in Hakam Ali''s case (supra) in favour of the employees. It is so said, because VRS is a beneficial scheme and the same has to be interpreted purposefully in favour of the employee for whom the scheme was formulated. Had the framers of the Scheme intended otherwise, they would have provided a specific condition to the contrary. However, it was not so done. Thus, it can be safely concluded that both the learned courts below committed no error of law, while passing the impugned judgments and the same deserve to be upheld, for this reason also.
Coming to the issue of limitation, there is no dispute about the laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Hargovind Jasraj''s case (supra). However, on close perusal thereof, the cited judgment has been found distinguishable on facts. It is the settled principle of law that peculiar facts of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first, before applying any codified or judge made law thereto. Sometimes, difference of one circumstance or additional fact can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, .
Keeping in view the peculiar fact situation of the present case, it is held that the plaintiff was having a continuing cause of action. He was paid less amount than his entitlement, when he was relieved from service under VRS. The said amount which was property of the plaintiff, was being used by the defendants during all this period. In such a situation, although plaintiff was entitled for higher rate of interest, as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others, 1997 (3) SCT 468, yet both the learned courts below have granted interest only @ 6%. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned judgments on this aspect as well.
Before arriving at a judicious conclusion, learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, rightly appreciated the true facts of the case as well as the evidence available on record. The cogent findings recorded in para 16 of the impugned judgment read as under:-
"After perusal of the said scheme this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff Chanda is entitled to get the benefits of ex-gratia payment by calculating her benefits in the light of the last pay drawn by him. Here, the learned counsel for the defendant has raised the contention about the applicability of the provisions of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and for that he has drawn the attention of the court qua sub-section 4(4) of that Act. This court is of the considered opinion that when Voluntary Retirement Scheme was there and which does not speak anything about the provisions of the Gratuity Act, 1972 thus, the provisions of that Act are not applicable in the case of the plaintiffs. Further, the Hon''ble High Court Adjudicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur did not accept the plea about the application of the provisions of the Gratuity Act, 1972 for calculation of the ex-gratia benefits under the scheme of voluntary retirement brought by the defendants. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has taken the support of section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act and submitted before the court that the defendants now have been estopped by their own act and conduct by taking U turn from the terms and conditions of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Thus, this court is of the considered opinion in the light of the above discussion that the defendants have to act in accordance with their Voluntary Retirement Scheme and have to adopt the terms and conditions enshrined therein for the calculation of the amount of ex-gratia payment for the plaintiff Chanda. Further the reason with this court for reaching on the said finding is that it was only the Voluntary Retirement Scheme circulated by the defendants and in the light of that the plaintiff Chanda had opted to take his voluntary retirement. The documents available on the case file make it clear that while opting for the voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the defendants, the provisions of the Gratuity Act, 1972 were the alien for the plaintiff. Accordingly, in the light of the above discussion, the plaintiff Chanda has been able to prove his case. As far as the other two plaintiffs namely Neki Ram and Hardev Singh are concerned, they cannot be granted their desired relief as they have failed to substantiate their case, as discussed above for want of legal notice to the defendants. However, in the larger interest of justice, they are at liberty to move their representation before the concerned authorities of the defendants to get their desired relief and their representation will be considered by the defendants within three months from the date of its receipt. Accordingly, the findings of the learned lower court in the impugned judgment whereby plaintiff Chanda has been held entitled for ex-gratia payment with interest @ 6.5% per annum from the date of retirement till its realization are upheld and calls for no interference, whereas the findings of learned lower court whereby the other two plaintiffs namely Neki Ram and Hardev Singh have also been held entitled for ex-gratia payment, stand reversed."
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case, in either of the impugned judgments. He also failed to put into service any substantive argument, so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned courts below. Further, no question of law much less substantial question of law has been found involved in the present case, which is sine qua non for interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. Thus, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below deserve to be upheld, for this reason as well.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Consequently, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below are upheld. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. No costs.