Thampy Mathews vs Industrial Investment Bank of India

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The counsel for the Respondent informs that in pursuance of the orders dated 19th May, 2011 and 31st May, 2011, a sum of Rs. 26,67,648/- has been paid to the Petitioner.

The counsel for the Petitioner also does not controvert the aforesaid. He however contends that the Respondent while computing the amount aforesaid, has paid interest on the VRS amount with effect from 4th June, 2010 only and not with effect from 1st February, 2009. It is contended that if interest were to be paid from 1st February, 2009, a further sum of Rs. 1,40,076/- is payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner.

Per contra, the counsel for the Respondent contends that the VRS amount was not payable on 1st February, 2009 as contended by the Petitioner but became payable only on 4th June, 2010 and with effect from which the interest had admittedly been paid. Reference in this regard is made to Clause 17(9) of the IIBI Staff Regulations as per which, in case any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against an employee before he ceases to be in service of the Respondent, the employee is deemed to be in service for the purpose of continuance and conclusion of such proceedings. It is contended that since the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner concluded only on 3rd June, 2010, the VRS amount became payable then only and interest on VRS amount has been computed from 4th June, 2010 itself. It is stated that thus notwithstanding the Petitioner having been relieved under VR Scheme on 31st December, 2008, he became entitled to the VRS amount only on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings on 3rd June, 2010.

The counsel for the Petitioner has also contended that there was a direction to the Respondent to pay interest with effect from 1st February, 2009. I do not agree. The orders aforesaid only noted the contentions of the parties.

I find merit in the contention of the Respondent. Moreover, it cannot be lost sight of that the parties were referred to mediation and the Petitioner had shown anxiety to settle the matter and payment aforesaid came to be released to the Petitioner in pursuance of the orders recording willingness of the Petitioner to accept in full and final settlement the amount offered by the Respondent. The Petitioner cannot now be heard to raise a dispute.

The counsel for the Petitioner also states that the release letter has not been issued to the Petitioner. The counsel for the Respondent states that the Petitioner was released vide letter dated 7th February, 2009. Recording the statement of the Respondent through counsel that the said letter may be treated as a release letter, the said grievance also does not survive.

The amount as aforesaid having been paid, no further orders are needed in the writ petition, the same is disposed of with no order as to costs.