Khushi Doshi
Published on: April 25, 2022 at 16:40 IST
The decision of Hindustan Copper Ltd, a Public Sector Undertaking, to reduce an employee’s VRS benefits by changing his date of birth was rejected by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose.
His date of birth is September 21, 1949, according to the employee. His company, on the other hand, utilized his Birth Date of September 21, 1945, to calculate the advantages of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. (VRS).
If the employer had recognized the later date, September 21, 1949, as his date of birth, his financial benefits from the program would have been larger because he would have had long service tenure left.
In the High Court, he filed a Writ Petition, contesting the Company’s behavior. He took his case to the Supreme Court after failing there. The High Court concluded that there weren’t enough documents to prove his birth year was 1949.
His date of birth in his service book was September 21, 1949, according to the admitted position. This was founded in 1975.
The Appellant claimed that it was only after his Voluntary Retirement that he discovered his date of birth had been changed to September 21, 1945. The documents’ “Form B” reflected the date of birth as 1945. According to the employer, the notation in the service book was an oversight that was corrected later.
According to the Supreme Court, the authorities proceeded in this Case in a rather mechanical manner, unilaterally altering the age entry in the service record based on their belief that an error had been corrected.
The Company changed the employee’s date of birth without giving him or her a chance to be heard, according to the Court. The Court also stated that Article 300A of the Constitution’s Right to Property protects VRS benefits.
The Court granted the appeal and ordered the respondents to extend the Appellant’s VRS benefits based on his September 21, 1949 birth date.
After deducting the sum already paid to him, such benefits must be granted to him within four months. From the moment he was released from duty on October 3, 2002, until the date of actual payment to him in line with this judgment, the differential amount shall accrue simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum.