MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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