Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

SVRS Package Finalizes All Claims: Cannot Revisit Penalties Imposed Prior to Retirement: Delhi High Court Overturns Punishment Imposed on Former DESU Employee

09 October 2024 9:45 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


Delhi High Court in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. D.P. Sharma (LPA 221/2020) overturned disciplinary penalties imposed on a former employee, D.P. Sharma, who had voluntarily retired under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SVRS). The Court ruled that the punishment imposed before his retirement could not be revisited, as the retirement package constituted a final settlement of all claims, barring further financial benefits.

D.P. Sharma, a former Meter Reader for the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU), was charged with misconduct in 1990. Following an inquiry that exonerated him, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings and imposed a penalty of a pay reduction in 1998. Sharma retired under the SVRS in 2003, but subsequent show-cause notices issued years later reaffirmed the original punishment. Sharma challenged these notices in court, leading to the quashing of the penalties in 2013. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., which had taken over DESU, appealed this decision.

The High Court focused on whether Sharma, having retired under the SVRS, could challenge the disciplinary actions imposed before his retirement. The company argued that by accepting the SVRS package, Sharma forfeited all claims for financial adjustments, including revisiting the imposed penalties.

The Court agreed, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in A.K. Bindal v. Union of India, which established that employees accepting voluntary retirement under such schemes cannot seek to alter the terms post-retirement. The Court emphasized that SVRS was a "package deal" and Sharma’s acceptance of the reduced salary at the time of retirement precluded any further claims.

Justice C. Hari Shankar ruled that Sharma's salary at the time of retirement was based on the penalty-imposed pay scale, and revisiting the disciplinary actions would disrupt the final settlement of the SVRS. The Court noted:

"Once the employee opts for a voluntary retirement scheme and accepts the associated financial benefits, the relationship between employer and employee is conclusively severed, barring any post-retirement claims for adjustments."

The Delhi High Court set aside the earlier judgment that had quashed Sharma's penalties and ruled that the voluntary retirement under SVRS finalized all claims. Sharma could not challenge the pay reduction imposed before his retirement.

 

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. D.P. Sharma 

Latest Legal News