- (1.) THIS writ application is filed by 16 management staff of the respondent No. 3, who opted under the Early Retirement Scheme, 1993, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to implement the scale of pay in respect of the aforesaid officers by merging dearness allowances at 608 point of CPI under the West Bengal Services (ROPA) Rules, 1990 as also by merging dearness allowances at 1510 point of CPI under the West Bengal Services (ROPA) Rules, 1998.
(2.) THE facts of this case in a nut shell are as follows :- THE respondent No. 3 was taken over by the Government of West Bengal under the Britannia Engineering Company Limited (Titagarh Unit) (Acquisition of transfer of undertaking) Act, 1984. THE petitioners were the management staff of the respondent No. 3. THE respondent Company floated a scheme known as "Early Retirement Scheme, 2003" on December 15, 2003 asking the officers and staff for exercising option under the aforesaid scheme for early retirement. By virtue of a representation some of the petitioners expressed their intention for exercising their option under the aforesaid Ear|y Retirement Scheme, 2003 without prejudice to the rights and contentions to the revised pay scale as per recommendations of the 3rd and 4th Pay Commission applicable to the Government Employees. Subsequently, all the officers submitted their options in the prescribed form to avail of the opportunity of Early Retirement Scheme, 2003 in the month of September, 2004. All the petitioners received the compensation and other benefits payable under the Early Retirement Scheme, 2003 in the month of October, 2004. THEreafter, the petitioners filed this writ petition on November 24, 2005. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents with regard to maintainability of the claim of the petitioners. According to Mr. Joydip Kar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioners opted under the Early Retirement Scheme, 2003 in the prescribed form. The compensation and other benefits payable under the aforesaid scheme were paid to all of them. In terms of the provisions of Clause 10.8 payments were made under the aforesaid scheme to employees satisfying all claims of those employees in full and final settlement. Therefore, according to him, the petitioners were not entitled to lodge any subsequent claim with regard to the revision of their scale of pay after cessation of the jural relationship in between employer and the employees. According to Mr. Kar, there was a corcluded contract in between the respondent No. 3 and the petitioners with regard to the payment arising out of the aforesaid scheme. Mr. Kar relies upon the decisions of A.K. Bindal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2003)5 SCC 163 and HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and Anr.v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited and Ors. reported in (2006)3 SCC 708 in support of his above submissions. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 adopted the submissions made on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He further relies upon a decision of Officers and Supervisors of IDPL v. Chairman and MD, IDPL reported in AIR 2003 SC 2870 in support of his above submission.
(3.) ON the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. M.M.Das, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners accepted the compensation and other benefits under the Early Retirement Scheme, 2003 without prejudice to their rights and contentions to the revised pay scale as per recommendations of 3rd and 4th Pay Commission applicable to the Government employees. Mr. Das relies upon Annexure XII at page 51 to his affidavit in reply to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and2 in support of his above submissions. It is also submitted by him that the petitioners retired during the pendency of their aforesaid claim under the Early Retirement Scheme, 2003. It is further submitted by him that this writ petition has not been filed for realization of any revision in the scale of pay of the employees of respondent No. 3 for the period after the date of retirement of the petitioners. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties on the preliminary objection and I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case on the basis of the materials on record. Admittedly, the dispute with regard to extending the benefit in the recommendation of 3rd and 4th Pay Commission applicable to the Government employees was spent at the time when the petitioners exercised their respective options under the Early Retirement Scheme, 2003. It is also not in dispute that some of the writ petitioners submitted a representation (received by the respondent No. 3 on August 9, 2004} communicating their decisions for exercising option under the scheme in question without prejudice to their rights and contentions to the revised pay scale under reference but it is evident from Annexure - 2 at pages 16 to 31 of the supplementary affidavit affirmed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that all the writ petitioners filed their respective options in the month of August and September, 2004 in prescribed forms. The statements contained in Clause-ll of the applications for exercised options by the writ petitioners are quoted below : "I accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the offer for ERS and having noted the conditions under para 2 (g) Opt for Ex-gratia compensation as mentioned at para 2 (d)(1)/2(d) (ii) (strike out whichever is inapplicable) of the Scheme." ;