2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.

Through this single judgment we intend to dispose of this appeal (I.C.A. No.1043/2016) as well as connected appeal bearing I.C.A. No.1256/2016, having commonality of law and facts inasmuch as the appellant filed a Constitutional Petition bearing W.P. No.27120/2015, (subject matter of this appeal) for grant of pensionary benefits as per judgment of the apex Court of the country rendered in Civil Petitions Nos.591 to 612 and 630 of 2003. The said Writ Petition came up for final hearing on 17.05.2016 when the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber; hence this appeal. So far as connected appeal is concerned the appellant has challenged order, dated 28.06.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers whereby the contempt petition (Crl. Org. No.1871-W of 2016) filed by him was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the apex Court of the country in judgment dated 03.06.2009 passed in Civil Petitions Nos.591 to 612 and 630 of 2003 has already held that the persons who retired under Voluntary Retirement/Separation Scheme (VRSS) are entitled to pensionary benefits according to the Pension Rules prevalent at the relevant time; that the learned Single Judge in Chamber has not taken into consideration that the similarly placed persons agitated the matter before the Federal Service Tribunal and said forum vide judgment, dated 21.01.2003, held them entitled for pension according to the rules in vogue at that time which was further upheld by the apex Court of the country through judgment dated 30.06.2009 and as case of the appellant was at par with them he has illegally been declined the said relief by the departmental authorities; that non-grant of pension by the department according to the State Life Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1986, amounts to contempt of the apex Court of the country.

3. Conversely, learned counsel representing the respondents-department, while defending the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Chambers, states that as the appellant after his retirement under VRSS had already received emoluments and according to the terms and conditions of VRSS he was bound to abide by subsequent changes or amendments to be introduced by the competent authority in pension rules.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we have noted that the appellant is claiming pension on the basis of revised pay scales. Admittedly, the appellant was retired from service in the year 2000 upon exercising his option under VRSS circulated by the department through Circular No P&GS/PO/19/2000, dated 15.11.2000. Clause D(v) of the said circular inter-alia envisages as under: "Members of the Pension Scheme who opt for VRSS will thereby get commutation of 50% plus 50% equal to 100% of the pension. Thereafter, they will not be entitled to any pension/benefit whatsoever whether to self spouse or family." The afore-quoted clause relating to VRSS renders it crystal clear that after receipt of pension, no future claim by the employees retired under said scheme was entertainable.

5. The question as to whether the employees who retired under VRSS were entitled to revised pay structure made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2000 or not, came under discussion before the apex Court of the country in Civil Petitions Nos.442- L, 445-L, 446-L, 467-L to 475-L and 535-L of 2004, decided through judgment, dated 30.07.2004, wherein while dealing with the preposition, subject matter of the instant appeal, it has inter-alia been observed as under:- "

5. We have heard petitioner's counsel in the case of Wali-ur-Rehman, and the remaining petitioners who appears in person and have also gone through the judgment wherein an undertaking has been given by the petitioners at the time of accepting extra pensionary benefits. A perusal whereof indicates that they are estopped under the law to put up any claim of whatsoever nature against the respondent-corporation in respect of monitory gains in view of the revised pay scales. The petitioners, after having Voluntarily accepting the premature retirement cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate on the ground that after severing connection with the corporation, it has granted further monitory benefits to its employees. As far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel pertain to State Bank's employees cases is concerned, it would not render any assistance to them because in the said case no binding undertaking was given by the employees, therefore, being distinguishable on facts and law, discussed therein, its ratio decidendi cannot be applied on the facts and circumstances of case in hand. In addition to it, it is also to be born in mind that after having severed their connection with the respondent corporation, the petitioners legitimately cannot claim monitory benefits which respondent corporation is extended to its employees from time to time, depending upon the changed circumstances, by the efflux of time and if the preposition put forward by the petitioner is accepted, then there would be no end to litigation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that petitioners are estopped by their conduct to claim the benefit of revised pay scales in view of the binding undertaking, which they have furnished at the time of accepting extra benefits on their pre-mature retirement." (emphasis provided). The afore-quoted judgment of the apex Court of the country leaves no ambiguity that the persons who opted to retire under VRSS were not entitled to any revised pay or pension on the basis of any subsequent revision of pay despite the fact that the revision of the pay scales was made effective from a retrospective date when such persons were serving the department.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service consequent upon exercise of his option under VRSS. The said scheme being contractual in nature between the employer and employees, no matter arising therefrom is amenable to constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

7. Now coming to the connected appeal, as the apex Court of the country has already clarified that the persons who opted for VRSS are not entitled for revised pay or any ancillary benefit, there is no question of contempt of any order passed by the apex Court of the country.

8. In view of above, both these appeals have no force and are hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. ZC/Q-3/L Appeals dismissed.