# U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. Lko. & Anr v. Ravi Shankar Mishra & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 167
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-06
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 147 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-state-sugar-corp-ltd-lko-anr-v-ravi-shankar-mishra-ors-46234
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Voluntary retirement -
It's consequence - Dearness allowance
revised subsequently - Entitlement -
Held, the law with regard to voluntary
retirement is that one who accepts the
Golden Handshake would only be entitled
to the sum promised under the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme and no other amount
- Golden Handshake includes ex-gratia
and other payments which such retiree
would otherwise not get had he continued
in service - Quashing the writ order, the
Division Bench observed that writ court
failed to consider the law on it and posted
the matter before the writ court. (Para 8,
13 and 17)
Appeal allowed in part. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

10 All. U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. Lko. & Anr. Vs. Ravi Shankar Mishra &Ors.
167
kahin le jane ka tathya ankit hai. Prastavit
abhiyuktgan pratham suchna report me
naamit kiye gae hain. Is prakar pratham
suchna report tatha nyayalay ke samaksh
saakshi P.W.1 Neeraj Rajbhar va P.W.2
Meena Devi va P.W.5 Sri Ram va P.W. 6
Hans Raj urf Hansu sabhi ke dwara Golu,
Pradeep tatha Jayram ka bhanja Pradeep
ki ghatna me shamil hone ka ullekh kia
gaya hai. Atah Golu putra Arun Kumar,
Pradeep putra Mewalal va Pradeep putra
Sri Ram Yadav ko dhara 302, 201 bhartiya
dand sanhita ke antargat prasangyan lete
hue abhiyuktgan ki haisiyat se vicharan
hetu talab kiye jane ka santoshjanak
aadhar
hai.
Tadanusar
prarthnapatra
kagaj sankhya 17B svikar kiye jane yogya
hai.

Aadesh

Tadanusar
prarthana
patra
antargat dhara 319 Dand Prakriya Sanhita
kaagaj sankhya 17B swikar kiya jata hai.
Golu putra Arun Kumar, Pradeep putra
Mewalal niwasi Gram Bhardha Bhiyura va
Pradeep putra Sri Ram Yadav ko vicharan
hetu abhiyuktgan ki haisiyat se jariye
summon dinank 25.11.2020 ke liye talab
kiya jae. Yah aadesh antrim nirnay ko
prabhavit nahi karega."

15. It is evident that learned trial court
had summoned the petitioner after recording
a prima facie satisfaction that his name being
mentioned in the F.I.R. and in the statements
of prosecution witnesses, there were facts
which had come to the knowledge of the trial
court "for which such person could be tried
together with the accused".

16. This Court therefore does not find
any good ground to show interference in
the order impugned in exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

17. The petition is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2021)10ILR A167
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J
THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Special Appeal No. 147 of 2020
with other connected cases

U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. Lko. & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Ravi Shankar Mishra & Ors.
 ....Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sudhanshu Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gopal Singh Bisht[G.S.Bi, Vijay
Kumar Srivastava

A. Service Law - Voluntary retirement -
It's consequence - Dearness allowance
revised subsequently - Entitlement -
Held, the law with regard to voluntary
retirement is that one who accepts the
Golden Handshake would only be entitled
to the sum promised under the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme and no other amount
- Golden Handshake includes ex-gratia
and other payments which such retiree
would otherwise not get had he continued
in service - Quashing the writ order, the
Division Bench observed that writ court
failed to consider the law on it and posted
the matter before the writ court. (Para 8,
13 and 17)
Appeal allowed in part. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Writ Petition no.259 (S/B) of 2011; U.P. State
Sugar Corp. Ltd. Vs Up Kaushal Kumar Sharma
& anr decided on 09.07.2012
2. Prantiya Vidhut Mandal Mazdoor Federation &
ors. Vs Rajasthan State Electricity Board and
Ors.; (1992) 2 SCC 723
3. IFCI Ltd. Vs Sanjay Behari & ors.; 2019 SCC
Online SC 1211
4. National Insurance Special Voluntary Retired/
Retired Employees Association & anr. Vs United
India Insurance Co.Ltd. & anr.; (2018) 18 SCC
186
5. Manojbhai N. Shah & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.;
(2015) 4 SCC 482
6. ITI Ltd. & etc. Vs ITI Ex./ Vr. Employees &
etc; (2002 LAB I.C.1036)
7. ITI Ltd. & etc. Vs ITI EX/ VR Employees/
Officers Welfare Assc. & ors.; (2010) 12 SCC
347
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.
&
 Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Subhanshu Chauhan,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Vijay Kumar Srivastava along with Sri
Gopal Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. These special appeals have been
filed by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation
Ltd.
through
its
Managing
Director
hereinafter referred to as ''the Corporation'
challenging a common judgment rendered
by the writ court on 14.10.2019 in a bunch
of writ petitions, the leading Writ Petition
being No. 47 (S/B) (now Service Single) of
2014 (Ravi Shankar Mishra vs. State of
U.P.).

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are
that the respondents herein are erstwhile
employees of the appellant-corporation. A
scheme of voluntary retirement was floated
on 13.10.2009 (page no.76 of the Special
Appeal) in pursuance to which, they
applied for voluntary retirement which was
accepted.
Accordingly,
they
retired
voluntarily. It is informed that they had an
option to continue with the company which
was purchasing the sugar mills of the
appellant-Corporation but the respondents
did not choose to do so, instead, they
applied for voluntary retirement which was
accepted. The nineteen respondents in these
nineteen appeals, retired on 30.08.2010,
18.09.2010,
15.10.2010,
18.09.2010,
18.09.2010,
05.10.2010,
07.10.2010,
07.10.2010,
15.10.2010,
07.10.2010,
07.10.2010,
07.10.2010,
07.10.2010,
07.10.2010,
30.08.2010,
07.10.2010,
30.08.2010,
30.08.2010,
15.10.2010
respectively.
They were
working
on
different posts in the mills being run by the
appellant-Corporation.
On
25.08.2010,
dearness
allowance
of
the
State
Government employees was revised in
pursuance to the recommendations of the
Fourth Pay Commission from 115 % to 129
%
w.e.f.
01.01.2010.
Thereafter
on
11.09.2009, a Government Order was
issued in exercise of powers of the State
Government under the U.P. Control of
Public Corporations Act, 1975 which was
addressed to all public corporations/
undertakings, which included the appellantCorporation
herein,
wherein,
it
was
mentioned that the State Government had
accepted, in principle, enhancement of
dearness allowance for employees of such
corporations
/
undertakings,
however
subject to certain conditions mentioned
therein one of which was the paying
capacity of the corporation which was to be
assessed by an ''Empowered Committee' as
mentioned therein. In pursuance to the
aforesaid Government Order, the meeting
of such Empowered Committee took place
on 16.09.2010. The minutes of the meeting
10 All. U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. Lko. & Anr. Vs. Ravi Shankar Mishra &Ors.
169
are annexed at page no. 240 of the appeal.
The Empowered Committee was informed
that enhancement of dearness allowance
from 115% to 129% w.e.f. 01.01.2010 for
employees of the appellant-Corporation
would entail an additional burden of
Rs.4.87 lac per month or Rs.58.44 lac per
year upon the appellant-Corporation. The
Empowered Committee on being informed
that the Corporation had the means to meet
the aforesaid expenditure, it approved such
enhancement for its employees. We asked
learned counsel for the appellant vide our
order dated 08.09.2021 as to whether the
proposal which was placed before the
Empowered Committee in its meeting
dated 16.09.2010 included the financial
burden which would have to be borne by
the corporation in respect to the seven of
the retired employees who are respondents
herein, meaning thereby, the respondents
who had retired prior to 16.09.2010/
24.09.2010. He informed that as the
proposal which was placed before the
Empowered Committee on 16.09.2010 was
prepared on 28.08.2010 and these seven
respondents were in service at that time,
they having retired subsequently, therefore,
the proposal included the amount payable
to them. He asserted that this was not on
account of the fact that they were eligible
for enhanced dearness allowance even after
acceptance of voluntary retirement but for
the reason aforesaid.

4. After the decision of the
Empowered Committee dated 16.09.2010
which
was
communicated
to
the
Corporation on 23.09.2010, the Managing
Director of the Corporation i.e. appellant
no.2 issued an order on 29.09.2010 in
compliance thereof notifying enhancement
in Dearness Allowance. However, in his
order, the Managing Director stated that
such enhanced dearness allowance would
not be available to such officers/ employees
whose application for voluntary retirement
had been accepted prior to the meeting of
the Board of Directors held on 24.09.2010.
The minutes of the Board meeting dated
24.09.2010 are not before us. Being
aggrieved by this order of Managing
Director dated 29.09.2010, twelve of the
respondents herein filed writ petitions
before the writ court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and the remaining
seven
respondents
though
they
also
asserted their claim to enhanced dearness
allowance, as informed by Sri Subhanshu
Chauhan,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants, did not challenge the order of
the Managing Director before the writ
court. The prayers relating to revised pay as
per
the
Sixth
Pay
Commission's
recommendations which in Writ Petition
no.47 (S/S) of 2014 are reliefs nos.2 and 3
were not pressed before the writ court
meaning thereby, the claim was confined to
the
payment
of
enhanced
Dearness
allowance as per Forth Pay Commission
Recommendations as is also mentioned in
the impugned judgment.

5. It is not out of place to mention that
apart from the aforesaid enhancement of
dearness allowance from 115 % to 129 %
w.e.f. 01.01.2010 there was a second
consideration for payment of enhanced
dearness allowance from 129 % to 145%
w.e.f. 01.07.2010 by the Empowered
Committee in the light of Government
Order dated 11.09.2009 in its meeting held
on 08.04.2011 pertaining to employees of
the appellant-Corporation and therein also a
similar decision was taken as was earlier
taken on 16.09.2010. Here again, as a
consequence to the aforesaid, the matter
was taken before the Board of Directors of
the appellant-Corporation in its meeting
dated
24.03.2011
and
thereafter
the
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Managing Director issued an order on
19.04.2011 granting enhanced dearness
allowance as aforesaid subject again to the
condition that this enhanced dearness
allowance would not be available to the
officers/ employees whose application for
voluntary retirement had been accepted
prior to 24.03.2011 which was the date on
which the Board of Directors held its
meeting in this context. Here again, the
minutes of the Board meeting dated
24.03.2011 are not before us, therefore, we
do not know as to whether this condition
was imposed by the Board of Directors or
by the Managing Director as was the case
with regard to decision dated 29.09.2010.
Consequent to this decision, the remaining
twelve respondents who retired subsequent
to 24.09.2010 and have been granted the
first enhancement of dearness allowance
from 115% to 129 % w.e.f. 01.01.2010
became
ineligible
rather
they
were
excluded from being given the subsequent
enhancement from 129% to 145% w.e.f.
01.07.2010. Needless to say that other
seven respondents were neither given the
first
enhancement
nor
the
second
enhancement. This subsequent decision of
the Managing Director dated 19.04.2011
was also subject matter of challenge in all
the writ petitions before the writ court by
the respondents.

6. The writ court allowed the writ
petitions of the respondents only on the
ground
that
a
similar
writ
petition
pertaining to another employee of the
appellant-Corporation who, in fact, had
retired in 2002, albiet, voluntarily, was
given the enhanced dearness allowance as
and when it was enhanced subsequently,
but with retrospective effect, and on a
claim being raised before the tribunal, the
same was accepted and thereafter the writ
petition of the appellant-Corporation before
this Court was dismissed. The special leave
petition
of
the
appellant-Corporation
against the judgment of the High Court was
dismissed at the S.L.P. stage itself in
limine. We have perused the order of the
Supreme Court of India dated 11.02.2013
which is at page no.289. From the nature of
the order passed, it is evident that the
decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of U.P. State Sugar
Corporation Limited vs. Up Kaushal
Kumar Sharma & Anr passed in Writ
Petition no.259 (S/B) of 2011 decided on
09.07.2012 cannot be treated as having
been affirmed or having merged in the
order of the Supreme Court as the Special
Leave Petition was dismissed in limine
without giving detailed reasons for the
same, except that, the Supreme Court was
not inclined to interfere in the matter.

7. We have perused the judgment
passed by the writ court and we find that
except for relying upon the decision of the
Division Bench in Up Kaushal Kumar
Sharma (supra) no other reasons had been
given therein for allowing the writ petition
of the respondents. Now, in this context,
we have perused the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Up Kaushal Kumar
Sharma (supra) which is at page no.280 of
the appeal and we find from the recitals
contained therein that at the relevant time
when a cause accrued in favour of Mr. Up
Kaushal Kumar Sharma, there was a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the
appellant-Corporation
that
'dearness
allowance may be granted at the State rate
to all category of staff in the Corporation
irrespective of the fact that they were
drawing D.A. or not. This D.A. would
automatically be revised from time to
time when rates of D.A. applicable to
State
Government
employees
were
revised'. As informed by learned counsel
10 All. U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. Lko. & Anr. Vs. Ravi Shankar Mishra &Ors.
171
for
the
appellant
vide
G.O.
dated
11.09.2009,
this
Resolution
became
ineffective because the State Government
issued necessary directions in exercise of
its powers under the U.P. Control Over
Public Corporations Act, 1975 that though
it accepts the enhancement of dearness
allowance
for
employees
of
public
corporations/ undertakings governed by
the said Government Order, in principle,
its implementation was made conditional,
one of the conditions being the paying
capacity of the Corporation i.e. its
financial capacity to bear the additional
burden. Thus, the Resolution that dearness
allowance
would
get
enhanced
automatically once it was enhanced for the
State government employees was no
longer effective. Secondly, we find that in
the said judgment of Up Kaushal Kumar
Sharma (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench
relied upon judgment of the Supreme
Court
rendered
in
Prantiya
Vidhut
Mandal Mazdoor Federation and Ors. vs.
Rajasthan State Electricity Board and
Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 723, which, we find
was not a case of voluntary retirement but
it was a case of wage arrears which
included the emoluments. Moreover, we
find also find that proposals which were
placed before the Empowered Committee
on 16.09.2010, though it included the
money payable to the seven of the
respondents herein, this was not on
account of the fact that they would
otherwise be eligible for such enhanced
dearness allowance even after they retire
voluntarily, but only on account of the fact
that proposal was prepared on 28.08.2010
on which date they were still in service
and therefore, treating them in service, the
matter was accordingly placed before the
Empowered Committee. All these aspects
of the matter have escaped consideration
of the writ court though they were
relevant.

8. We also find merit in the
submission of learned counsel for the
appellant that the law with regard to
voluntary retirement is that one who
accepts the Golden Handshake would only
be entitled to the sum promised under the
Voluntary Retirement Scheme and no other
amount. This is for the reason that such
Golden Handshake includes ex-gratia and
other payments which such retiree would
otherwise not get had he continued in
service. We may refer to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of IFCI Ltd. vs.
Sanjay Behari and Others 2019 SCC
Online SC 1211 wherein this aspect of the
matter fell for consideration and the law in
this regard was explained in para no.21 to
24 which are quoted herein below:-

"21. The principle ground for
assailing the impugned order is that any
scheme for voluntary retirement is a
package by itself. One cannot, thus, look to
other voluntary retirement schemes, or
other rules and regulations for the said
purpose. 22. In our view, there can be no
quibble with this fundamental principle. In
fact, we had the occasion to recently
propound the legal position in this behalf,
in National Insurance Special Voluntary
Retired/Retired Employees Association v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.. The view
taken is that it is not appropriate to add or
subtract from the Scheme, nor can any
concessions be given contrary to the
Scheme, or if they are not provided for
under the Scheme. What is to be seen are
the clauses of the scheme under which
voluntary retirement has been taken and
the terms of the scheme must be strictly
followed. This Court observed as under:
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"19. We have, thus, no hesitation
in coming to the conclusion that statutory
or contractual, such voluntary retirement
schemes as the SVRS-2004 Scheme have to
be strictly adhered to, and the very
objective of having such schemes would be
defeated, if parts of other schemes are
sought to be imported into such voluntary
retirement schemes. What is offered by the
employer is a package as contained in the
schemes of voluntary retirement, and that
alone would be admissible.

20. The issue which arose in
Manojbhai N. Shah (Manojbhal N. Shah v.
Union of India, (2015) 4 SCC 482: (2015)
2 SCC (L&S) 55] was qua the revision of
pay, with retrospective effect. That was the
only issue. That issue was decided against
the beneficiaries of the SVRS-2004 Scheme.
If there are certain observations made by
that Bench while deciding so, qua aspects
which are not forming the subject matter of
that dispute, the same cannot be read to
amount to grant of rellef/benefits, contrary
to the terms of the Scheme, and that too, in
the absence of any specific directions.

22. It is, thus, abundantly clear
that nothing more would be given than
what is stated in the scheme, and for that
matter, nothing less. If the employees avail
of the benefit of such a scheme with their
eyes open, they cannot look here and there,
under different schemes, to see what other
benefits can be achieved by them, by
seeking to take advantage of the more
beneficial schemes, while simultaneously
enjoying the more beneficial aspects of the
SVRS-2004 Scheme."

23. In the present case, VRS-2008
has received consideration right till the
Supreme Court and attained finality on the
issue of benefits and Incentives sought to be
claimed beyond the Scheme, in P.P.
Vaidyal case. Interestingly, some of the
respondents,
apparently,
are
common
between that case and the present case.
Thus, not having succeeded on one aspect,
another aspect is now sought to be
agitated.

24. We may usefully refer to the
judgment in A.K. Bindal v. Union of India,
which set forth the very rationale of
introducing
a
scheme
for
voluntary
retirement, l.e., to reduce surplus staff and
to bring in financial efficiency. It is in this
context that it is referred to as the 'Golden
dshake'. Ex gratia amounts are paid, not
for doing any work or rendering any
service, but in lieu of employees leaving
services of the company and foregoing any
further claims or rights in the same. It is
optional, not compulsory. It is a take it or
leave it situation. Thus, anyone availing of
a VRS does so with his eyes wide open. On
having availed of the benefits under the
scheme, if there are future changes, which
may give any of the monetary benefits, the
same cannot be read into the scheme. This
would defeat the very purpose of having a
VRS, i.e., to bring in financial efficiency, as
it would not be possible that despite having
paid the amounts, the organization can be
lumped with further financial liability
arising from re -thoughts by such persons,
who have already availed of the VRS. The
VRS cannot be frustrated in this manner."

9. It has been similarly held by the
Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Special Voluntary Retired/
Retired Employees Association and Anr.
vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
And Anr. (2018) 18 SCC 186. Para no.19
of the which reads as under:-

"19. We have, thus, no hesitation
in coming to the conclusion that statutory
or contractual, such voluntary retirement
schemes as the SVRS-2004 Scheme have to
be strictly adhered to, and the very
10 All. U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. Lko. & Anr. Vs. Ravi Shankar Mishra &Ors.
173
objective of having such schemes would be
defeated, if parts of other schemes are
sought to be imported into such voluntary
retirement schemes. What is offered by the
employer is a package as contained in the
schemes of voluntary retirement, and that
alone would be admissible."

10. We may also refer to another
decision
of
the
Supreme
Court
in
Manojbhai N. Shah and ors. vs. Union of
India and ors. (2015) 4 SCC 482, wherein
the question which fell for consideration
was as to whether the employees who had
opted for voluntary retirement under the
scheme were entitled to get the benefit of
additional pension on the basis of revised
salary in pursuance to the Notification
which was applicable in the said case or
not. In this regard, the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties were
noticed in para no.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
and 26 and thereafter, it was held that
employees who had taken the benefit under
the scheme and had already retired would
not be entitled to additional pension due to
retrospective increase in pay in pursuance
of the Notification dated 21.12.2005. They
would be entitled only to revision of exgratia amount upon retrospective increase
in the salary. This latter part was on
account of a clear stipulation in the
Notification which is quoted in para no.13
of the said judgment that in case, wage
revision is effected from a date prior to the
date of this notification in the Official
Gazette, the benefit of revised pay for the
purpose of payment of ex gratia will be
allowed. According to learned counsel for
the appellant, in the case at hand, there is
no such provision. However, it is a moot
point as to whether assuming for a moment
that the enhanced dearness allowance
would not be available to the respondents
retrospectively whether they would be
entitled to the enhancement of the ex gratia
amount under the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme which they have received or for
that matter whether they would not be
entitled for the same merely because there
is no provision in the scheme at hand in this
regard. This aspect of the matter has also
not been considered by the writ court.

11. We have referred to the aforesaid
decision to drive home the law on the
subject that merely because there is
revision of pay or dearness allowance
subsequent to voluntary retirement, albeit,
retrospectively one who has voluntary
retired
and
has
accepted
a
Golden
Handshake in the form of amount payable
under such scheme including ex-gratia
amount which he would not have got had
he continued in service, would not be
entitled to anything extra than what has
already been received by him under this
voluntary retirement scheme as per the said
decisions. We may quote para no.28, 29,
30, 31 , 32, 33 of the said decision.

"28. There is no doubt that the
Scheme had been framed by the employers
to see that their expenditure in long term is
decreased by making one-time payment of
additional amount to the employees opting
for retirement under the Scheme. Strength
of the staff was going to be reduced
substantially due to voluntary retirement of
several employees and the reduction in the
staff was to result in reduction in the
burden
of
salary
and
establishment
expenditure. With the aforestated intention,
which had been clearly revealed in the
Scheme, the employers had floated the
Scheme and several employees of the
employers had taken due advantage of the
Scheme by opting under the Scheme and by
taking not only ex gratia payment of salary
but also additional pension, which they
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would not have received otherwise. It is not
in dispute that the employees opting for
retirement under the Scheme were to get
benefit of additional five years of service
while calculating the pension. As stated
hereinabove,
the
said
benefit
was
substantial and the said benefit along with
benefit of ex gratia payment, tempted
number of employees who opted under the
Scheme and retired happily after getting all
retiral benefits.

29. Normally, retrospective rise
in salary is given to those who are in
service at the relevant time or who had
retired in normal circumstances. The
employees who had opted under the
Scheme had not retired as per the normal
conditions of service but had retired under
the Scheme upon taking some special
additional benefits.

30. It is also pertinent to consider
Clause 5(2) of the Scheme, which has been
reproduced hereinabove. According to the
said clause, ex gratia amount was to be
paid to the employees concerned on the
date of his/her being relieved and it was
clarified that in case of wage revision
effected from a date prior to the date on
which the said Scheme had been notified in
the Official Gazette, the benefit of revised
pay for the purpose of payment of ex gratia
would be allowed. Meaning thereby, the
employees who had opted under the
Scheme and retired from service were
entitled only to revision of ex gratia amount
upon retrospective increase in the salary.
Intention of the employers. is clearly
revealed from Clause 5(2) of the Scheme.
The intention was to give. benefit only in
relation to ex gratia amount and not in
relation to the pension. Had the intention
been to give benefit of additional pension
also, the said fact would have been
incorporated in the aforesaid clause. In
normal circumstances when an employee
retires from service, his relationship with a
the employer comes to an end. It is also a
well-settled
legal
position
that
after
retirement, normally no disciplinary action
can be initiated against the employee
concerned, Similarly, the retired employee
would
not
have
any
right
of
redetermination of his pension but only in
cases
where
salary
is
revised
with
retrospective effect, the retired employee
gets the benefit of additional pension and
that too in certain cases.

31. In the instant case, it is
crystal clear that the employees had
already opted under the Scheme-under a
specially made scheme, which was framed
only with an intention to reduce future
expenditure of the employers. If all these
benefits are given to the persons who had
already opted under the Scheme and had
retired, the real purpose with which the
Scheme had been framed would be
frustrated.

32. We do not agree with the
submission
made
on
behalf
of
the
employees that action of the employers in
not giving pay rise to the employees in
pursuance
of
the
notification
is
discriminatory in nature. The employees
who retired under the Scheme form a
separate class of employees who were
given many benefits, which are not given to
the employees retiring in normal course. If
they all form a separate class, by no stretch
of imagination can it be said that all those
who retired under the Scheme and those
who retired in normal course, are similarly
situated. Thus, in our opinion, there is no
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India in the instant case.

33.
Similarly,
there
is
no
violation of the principle of equal pay for
equal work. True, that those who retired
under the Scheme did the same work which
was being done by those who retired in
10 All. U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. Lko. & Anr. Vs. Ravi Shankar Mishra &Ors.
175
normal course, but one cannot forget the
fact that those who retired under the
Scheme got substantially higher retirement
benefits. In the circumstances, we do not
accept the said submission also."

12. We may also take note of the fact
that as regards reliance placed by Sri Up
Kaushal Kumar Sharma in his case decided
by a Co-ordinate Bench as already referred
hereinabove, upon a decision of the
Karnataka High Court in the case of ITI
Limited and etc. Vs. ITI Ex./ Vr.
Employees and Etc (2002 LAB I.C.1036),
the said decision, though, it was not relied
specifically by the Co-ordinate Bench in
his case, was set aside by the Supreme
Court of India vide a decision reported in
(2010) 12 SCC 347 ITI Limited and etc.
Vs. ITI EX/ VR Employees/ Officers
Welfare Association and Ors.

13. The law as discussed hereinabove
has also not been considered by the writ
court.

14. During the course of argument,
we were taken through Regulation no.43 of
the relevant Regulations applicable to the
employees of the corporation according to
which the allowances payable were to be
determined by the Board or by the
Managing Director if such power was
delegated to him by the Board. The
appellants sought to bring on record a
Resolution
of
the
Board
allegedly
delegating such power in favour of the
Managing Director. This Resolution has
been placed before us along with the
supplementary affidavit on 27.09.2021. We
have
perused
the
said
Resolution,
especially, Sl. no.5 and 18 thereof which
were relied by learned counsel for the
appellant. Sl. no.5 relates to fixation of pay.
We asked learned counsel for the appellant
as to whether under the service rules or
under the scheme of the service rules, pay
includes allowances such as dearness
allowance, he could not point out any such
provision before us. As regards Sl. no.18
which relates to sanction of recurring
revenue expenditure, we are not convinced
that entitlement of employees to dearness
allowance would be included in it per se as
this heading would be attracted only after
initial decision is taken by the competent
authority
as
regards
entitlement
of
employees to enhanced dearness allowance.
However, as already stated earlier, the
Managing Director in his order has referred
to two Resolutions of the Board of
Directors, one dated 24.09.2010 and the
other dated 24.03.2011 which are not on
record. Therefore, it is not very clear as to
whether the orders issued by the Managing
Director are merely in compliance of any
decision taken by the Board of Directors
i.e. so far as they decline the benefit of
enhanced
dearness
allowance
to
the
respondents herein or it is an independent
decision taken by the Managing Director
himself without any such decision of the
Board, thereby dis-entitling the respondents
herein from such benefits. But this aspect
of the matter as to whether the Managing
Director had competence in this regard and
whether the decision was taken at the
competent level or not has also not been
considered by the writ court. It is also a
moot point as to whether, assuming that the
Managing Director independently took
such a decision which he was not
authorized to take would make any
difference in the matter if, in view of the
law discussed hereinabove, the respondents
were otherwise not entitled to the said
benefit, but as already stated these aspects
have not been considered by the writ court.
These aspects would have to be considered
by the writ court to the extent required in
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the light of what has been discussed in this
judgment.

15. Now, there is another aspect of
the matter as pointed out by Sri V.K.
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents that subsequent to retirement
of the respondents herein there were other
voluntary retirements of employees of the
appellant-Corporation in 2012 to whom the
benefit of enhanced dearness allowance
with retrospective effect was extended in
2013. The respondents have brought on
record certain documents but we find that
this aspect of the matter has also not been
considered by the writ court. Learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the
scheme under which the respondents herein
retired and the scheme under which other
persons retired subsequently in respect to
whom it is said that they have been given
the same benefit was very different. While
in the first V.R.S. was brought in pursuance
to disinvestment exercise wherein certain
mills were to be sold out to certain
purchasers and the employees had an
option
either
to
continue
with
the
purchasers
or
to
opt
for
voluntary
retirement. The respondents herein opted
for voluntary retirement. He says that the
subsequent scheme was for reducing the
expenditure. As the writ court has not
considered this aspect of the matter,
therefore, we decline to record any
conclusive opinion on this count as to
whether
the
respondents
have
been
discriminated or not subject of course to the
law on the subject discussed hereinabove.

16. Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondents informed that
retirees of 2012 who were given the
enhanced
dearness
allowance
retrospectively in 2013, were also initially
declined the said benefit but the said
Managing Director by his orders granted
the same. Therefore, it is matter to be seen
as to how far the Managing Director has
competence in this regard, if it is so.
Counsel for the appellant says that there
was a resolution of the Board in this
regard.

17. In view of the above discussions,
as the writ court has decided the writ
petitions only on the basis of the decision
in Up Kaushal Kumar Sharma (supra)
without considering the law on the subject
as discussed hereinabove as also relevant
factual aspects pointed out hereinabove,
especially, in view of the fact that at the
time when Up Kaushal Kumar Sharma
retired, there was a Resolution of the
Board
of
Directors
for
automatic
enhancement of dearness allowance to
employees of the corporation consequent
to any such enhancement in respect of the
State Government employees, whereas in
this case, the said Resolution was not
applicable because of Government Order
dated 11.09.2009, and also as the Special
Leave Petition against the judgment in Up
Kaushal Kumar Sharma, after being
converted into civil appeal, was dismissed
with the observation that the question of
law is left open, which we have now
clarified, therefore, for all these reasons
the impugned judgment can't be sustained.
We quash the judgment of the writ court.
The writ petitions shall now be restored
for hearing afresh in the light of this
judgment. We request learned Single
Judge to dispose of the writ petitions at the
earliest say within two months. The writ
petition shall be posted before the writ
court on 10.11.2021 amongst the first ten
cases of the day.

18. The appeals are allowed in part.
----------
10 All. Abdul Rauf Vs. U.P. Coop. Fed. Ltd. & Ors.
177
(2021)10ILR A177
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J

Service Single No. 279 of 2020

Abdul Rauf ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Coop. Fed. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Apoorva Tewari, Aditya Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shireesh Kumar

A. Service Law - Punishment of Dismissal
- Dismissal order was quashed in earlier
writ petition - Effect - Consequential
service benefit, revision of pay scale etc. -
Entitlement - Held, quashing of the
punishment
order
would
result
in
restoration of the position as it stood on
the date of passing of the order - It shall
be treated as if the punishment order was
not in existence and in that case, the
petitioner would be entitled for all service
benefits. (Para 29)
B. Service Law - Consequential benefit -
Meaning
and
Scope
-
Consequential
benefits are such benefits which are easily
quantifiable, namely, those in the nature of
loss of salary, emoluments and other
benefits - The reliefs in respect of revision
of pay scale by providing the annual
increments, grant of first promotional pay
scale
and
the
benefit
of
Sixth
Pay
Commission on the basis of revised pay
scale
come
within
the
purview
of
'emoluments and other benefits' - Colonel
Ran Singh Rudee's case followed. (Para 34)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Colonel Ran Singh Rudee;
(2018) 8 SCC 53
2. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs Church of
South India Trust Association CSI Cinod
Secretariat, Madras; (1992) 3 SCC 1
3. Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta Vs U.O.I. & ors.; 1989
Supp (1) SCC 416
4. U.O.I.& ors. Vs Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh
Kadyan & anr.; (2000) 6 SCC 698
5. Chief Regional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Siraj Uddin Khan; (2019)
7 SCC 564
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh
Singh Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Apoorva Tewari, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shireesh
Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite
parties.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has prayed following
reliefs:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very
kindly be pleased to:

a) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari to
quash
the
impugned
orders
dated
06.07.2018 and 21.07.2018 annexed as
Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to this
writ petition;

b) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to revise
the salary of the petitioner by providing the
annual increments to the petitioner from
01.02.1999 till 31.07.2017 and to grant the
first promotional pay scale to the petitioner
w.e.f. the year 2004 and further grant the
benefits of the sixth pay commission on the
basis of the revised salary;