- (1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to provide free educational facilities to his children in term of chapter VI clause 4 of the Valid Settlement dated 21.7.95. A copy of the extract of the said clause has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ application. Clause 6.4 reads as under: "6.4: In case of death or permanent total disablement while in service or on retirement of employees, their children availing educational facilities in DAV Jawahar Vidya Mandir, Ranchi will continue to avail the facility of educations as available to the children of serving employees." In the instant case the petitioner has not retired after attaining the age of superannuation, rather, he sought voluntary retirement which was accepted and he was paid substantial amount. In that view of the matter clause 6.4, as quoted hereinabove, does not apply to those employees who have voluntarily retired from service.
(3.) RECENTLY the Supreme Court in the case of A.K.Bindal and another vs. Union of India and others reported in 2003 (5) SCC 163 has observed as under: "Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Additional Solicitor -General has submitted that while framing the Voluntary Retirement Scheme the grievance of the petitioners regarding non -revision of their pay scale has been taken into consideration and it was for this reason that in the second Voluntary Retirement Scheme announced on 6.11.2001 ex gratia payment in respect of employees on pay scales at 1.1.1987 level, has been increased by 100 per cent and for employees on pay scales at 1.1.1992 level, it has been increased by 50. per cent. So far as HFC is concerned, 4781 out of 4881 employees had opted for VRS and only hundred remained. Similarly for FCI out of 5712 employees 5675 had opted for VRS and only thirty seven remained. The majority of leftover number of employees in both the Companies is proposed to be retained for assisting in completion of the formalities entailing the closure process. The Government of India had released an amount of Rs. 154 crores to HFC and Rs. 237.50 crores to FCI for disbursal of VRS benefits to these employees. Learned counsel has submitted that the employees of both the Companies having taken advantage of VRS and having taken the amount without any demur, the relationship of employer and employee had ceased to exist. They cannot therefore raise any grievance regarding the non -revision of pay scale at this stage and consequently the writ petitions have become infructuous. Even Shri A.K. Bindal who filed the writ petition in his capacity as the President of the Federation of Officers ' Association had also taken voluntary retirement and after acceptance of the amount had left the Company and had gone out. Shri Venkataramani has submitted that the employees had no option in the matter and had accepted VRS under compulsion as it was provided therein that those who did not opt for the same within three months from the date of offer would be eligible only for retrenchment compensation. He has also submitted that under the Scheme the total compensation amount has to be calculated on the basis of existing pay scale and as there was no revision of pay scales since 1992, the petitioners have got a very small amount. Learned counsel has further submitted that there can be no waiver of fundamental rights and even if an employee has opted for VRS and has taken the amount and left the company it would not mean that he has foregone his right to claim the salary which he was entitled to get during the period when he was an employee of the Company". ;