IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR(M.P) w.P.No. :5écK of 2000 u Petiticner V -ersus - Resnondents V 39 A <9kv¢wL4 rwL/V‘Jl z/A, K C Jalu: aged 59 ears S/o.Late Komal Chand Jain _ R/o Shop No 210 Zonal Market Sector-1O P0. hilai Dlst.Durg (M P) S.K.Bose, aged 59‘years S/0.Late $udhir Banjan Bose R/o.P-32, Priyanka Na ar Risali, Bhilai, BURG Chandra Has Singh, aged 51 years S/o. Sm U S Sangh R/o Street-2, Black~3, Steel Colony, Nehru Nagar(West) Bhllal, Durg (M. ) Blr Bahadur élngh, aged 57 years R/o. 27/7, Motilal Nehru Nagar(w) PO. Bhllal, Durg (MP) D.K.Biswas, aged 59 years 3/0. at; kalgpada Biswas 155, Zonal Markpo Sect01—1G Bhllal DuIgCF P S/o. Radha Mohan slnrh 6. V.P.Dubey, aged 58 years ox m gl/W S/o. R/o 8/3, Nehru Naaar (East)' POVBhuai, Burg (filp) 7. Teaendra Prasad aged 54 years S/O Koé’e A PSqLu R/o c/o 27/7,Mot11a1 NehmnNagar(w) Po:'Bm1ai, Burg (M.P) 1j§ Hindustan-SteeTworks Construction Ltd. Qwé 9 goggeégmgaiggii'tgignam Calcutta 2. The Chairmanrcum-Managing Dlrector g¢wb Hlndustan Steelworks Constn.Ltd 1, Shakespeare Saran; 8th Floor Calcutta ....2 ) ‘ I @gf ) \x % g 4 ‘uNxGrO QLJ’A)» i4! CM) Bhilai Po: Bhilai, Unit Distwurg T‘AW ’xuZ/Qfg’ R ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE Cmkm’ 3w? (a wan PETI #WM \6" Q, 3. The Generalrmana’ge Hindustan Steelworks Constn. (VLF) wrCm' QLrJ/viv @Wwav‘ mkaib‘; TION UNDE F INDIA CONSTITUTION O Ltd. % No.2;20u1. M1: D Shashidhm‘m‘u Advocate for the petitioners 5513912000, 5571/2000, 51/‘200L 54/2001 3; 184}?/2001, 1; zo5f2001, 1:42 200;. :Mr‘ Pia Nos 220;”:00 , 431/0002, ”immoog 0, 1354j2002. 1‘. Thakur Vijav Sing. fer respandeui Nu 1 in all the writ petitiene. Mr. VVS Munhv. Sr WVP. N0s.43 112002, 744/ 2G02 afommemioned petitions Mr. Deshmukh, counsel for reepc‘uldent No.2 8r. ’) 458/ 200 1 J\ Sahu. with °snji CR. Sahu. an WP. N9$.3081""’060 %B§)SIZE(300‘ a! a >1 w pom 1a79,l2002 3a Advocata 51 0C2 ‘1, A$si$tant Solicitor {knew} of India Counsei for respondem. M3,. 1 Ur, § 3 in 3a 1379/ 2002 and m r€$t of the. RS. Koshv, Advocate with Mr. Vincd; A: m {l'mse pmitious ralats. to mow: cmplovaes win) Look [11c mn‘ramem under Vida Hx’? cimuizu‘ No. GM 1011,1988. HO Circular'No. PEP. ] 194‘- 11.199G. {'x, HO (,n‘mxiax N0. 3. which was amended {mm {mm 1:0 ciaimeci by the petitioners in these pomts raiseci in WP‘ No.2/2001. being dispoeed of by this common f“ voiumam ilxu‘oduced by respondenr' No.3: (PaaA) ,i Egm“; 16; 88 dated. (IRR/531/M-7221 dam PERfRR/sm dared 23.5.1 2000. time upto year reli petiu‘on's are covareci by therefore, these petitions a ordmx ths Vommarv Retiremmnt Scheme \‘r‘ 3.36.5 €01.11se1 for the petitioners 1n WP. 1 9 c; ‘ r h , WW mm WWW WW%wm mm asmm 28.4.2605 Mr, BR. Glnmh. Ciaunscl far tlm pcmiencr in VH3 ‘é Xi—HC-zz @ .. L.“ 200. mmmga WW&‘WW Fl) aamm At the outset it may bf mentioned. that reg-pendent N02 8n 3 have not denied the. admissib ility of the benefits to the petitioners, but their case 1S that respondents cohcem is running in loss and due Id fmanciaj crunch they inuoduced voluntauj" retirement scheme. for reducing the workmen force in. order it; reduce. the {mammal _ . burden. . 1x1 the return at _ respondent. No.2 . 313$ :91“ 1t has been mentioned that reepondents have never denied benefits to its employeee but because of jucity of funds the betieiite of sale!» am! wages cannot be given fuli extent. The fuet claim made by the petitianers 13 thatxthey are entitled for the arrears of 5 Pay Comm§ssion> from 1.111996 to 81.12.1997. Learned c ei for the petitioners submits that employees of res wondent N 2 ae 3 were given beneiite of 4th Pay Commission and thereafter, 5“} Pay Commission was given to all Public Undertakings wef. LLI1996 and in this connection a circular ciated 20.1.l998 ( mexure P—l} was issued. Since. the employees of respondent N 86 3 fall uncier the Central Dearness Allowance (C.D.A.), they a also eligible for 5th Fay Commission from 11.1996. but the em 3ioyees of Bhilai Unit working under tespondent No.3 have be allowed the said benefits only from l. l. 1998 and have been (let 'ved of the saitlbenefits for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.199 My. Kosh‘y, counsel f r respouoent No.2 of: 3 submits that Le. from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1997 all the dues have been paid to t 1e petitioners. except an‘ears for this peri o s o o '2 r e o @ HW,WHTR§, Wm \H (’ \ W833 7"H={ zoo m~nnnuuouuunu-uuu WWW .3 mm&‘wm %3If%w3n%w in this connemion, ifrwe lonk inm the Annexum P-‘2 dated 10.11.1983, (1i the time of iutroduction of voh‘mtm‘y retirement $ch€m6 the CmployEc$ of réspohdént NEZ 61; 3 war: infornmd that they will b6 paid all me bencfns as memioned in the circular including the CPF‘, Earned Le? ve encashment as per rule$¥of the Company, glatuity, salary for the notice period and TA. gimvalcnt to actual fare of the 015155 by Rail to which the employee5 is entitled for self and family promeding to rccordcd home tcwn and reimbursement of actual expenditurt incuntd for n‘ansporfan‘on of personal etfect as per T.A. Rule: . Since the mspoxy'ient company is running in 10$s that isrwhy the Central Government came famm‘d for financial assistance to the. respendents—Company and as inform-3d by Mr. Murthy that in the first instance Rs.79.99 crox‘es non—pian loan was sanctioned by the Central Government in the year 1999-2000 to meet the liability of smtutoxy clues granted in l- - w 9 as pan o£ comprehensive revival package, thereafrer, a non—pk loan of Rs.89.4’l crores granted in the year 200 1-0‘2 to meet 1e liability of statutoljy dues to separated emploi’ees and s‘ 'arlf, a non—plan loan of Rs.61.ll crows granted in lhe year 2i ”2—03 for payment of dues to the emnloyees of respondent ‘SCL. Accorc‘lingly, the Centml Government has grantecl so much financial assistance to the resijondent—Cnmpemy in order to make the payment of separated employees as comprehensive viva} package and the petitioners sought voluntary letnement. ac per respondent company’s scheme, /"‘ Hi 200 mymr mm L *mm ~~\ mmffwm . om“... 3 should nnt ignore the sacr$ce made by the petitioners by seeking voluntaxy retirement. Thus, in my opinion, in visw of all altitled for the beneiit of 5th of arwars for the period from by the petitionew, as the pe thev have took the volun cmployEcs thEy Equirad so settlemalt after their .retim working, are getting; their salaries but the retired employees are wholly dependant on the retiral benehts whatever they received. Particulai‘iv when respondent No.2 8a 3 e. abovc facts thE p€.tition:rs are Commission and also the benem 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1997 a“, daimed g. 'oners are a ciass $epar€t€é because ‘v retirement. and heing retixed e fmanudl assistance for their t. The empiovees, who am still have been rendered fulanciai assistance bv the Central Government, the}; are under obligation to pa? the anears of 55“ Pay Commission to the employees who took. the voluntary retirement as yer the scheme introduced by the respondent No.2 3a 3. As such, it is d'irecteci that respondent No.2 8a 3 shall paf.’ the airears of 5m Pay Commission to the petitioners for the period bv the petitioners. Now. coming to the second poim raised by The Counsel for which was 3894') up to 31.6.2GOO L% from 1.7.2000, as mentioneci in Clause. (b) of Paragraph No.4 of the petition. Counsel for the petitioners’ contention is that paid. 22% DA oulvl wheteas DA, I 1. 3.. 1996 to 31. 12‘ 13397, as chimed ? anci ultimatelv increased to 4 till 30.6.2000 the petitioneis were thev weie entitled. for the mcmased As against this Mr. Korhv submits that as per cimular of W therefore, respondent No.2 8n. the petitioners regarding D.A.t ti. x V n XI-HC—22 HW,W,W Wm xx! ? W mm;'”"” HE 200 . .... ”u... nu ....... . . .......--... nu. ...... nu. mam WW WM§wW ” S T %a1%nal1%¥T mmw Minku‘y of Steel dated 14.7‘ 99g (Annexure R42) made e§ective from 1.4.1999 the adciition D.A. was frozen on account of financial crunch and loss to tho company. In this connection; \ again 1 would like to menti n ‘the same pomt which has been mentioned in the eariier p of this order that as fat as the working empioyees am com: n1ed, it may be 1egal bgg.rfor the retireti emplovees who took voluntam‘ retirement a‘ncl thev are Wholly dependent upon th€ IEtiIal benefits and looking to the contu’bution of rhese pemo s bV coming forward for seeking voluntarv natirement in. orde to connihute for reduction of the workmen in the company so ‘ @r . to reduce the financial burnen on the company, respondent No. 8r, 3 are. expectec1 to more generous towards these employees, a after their retirement only retiral benefn’s are the money on vhicn thev can molong their life. Therefore, mspondent No.2 67.. should pay the DA at the incteased mte to the petitioners till the date. they took voluntaqr tetimment. M12 Koshy tried to raiee th {Joint that some of the employees Court under futiele 32 of the Constitution of India for dii cting the respondent. Company to mleaee the DA etc and he h s suhmitted that said petition has been dismissed bv the Hon‘ Apex {Tomi with the direction that the nciitioners would be at approached the fion'ble Ap erty to approach the respondent Company for increase of DA in terms of the scheme. in ease the company eains prom. But ajajn in my humbie opinion it applies to the working employees o and the petition was also tiled by the working employees. As ntionecl earlier that the petin'oners @w 1 m e b V ‘b n ' e XI—HC-22 herein are a c133$ separate, respondent No.2 $5 3 even .I the Cunral Gavarnmént. the therefore, thev $hould pav t ranmmem. As far as the uoint Wit Allowancc is conca’nsd. th: matascd HRA could not b5 paucity of funds. But wk d'mected to pav the mcreaSe« entitled for increased (IRA. N02 & 3 should pav thc in mice. The other paint rajSed is that in Some cases the retirement in the month o}; sewices till June. 2090, but the salary for thie intenfeoing pen‘od it. from 1.27. 19Q9 till that actual date of retirement has not been paid to them. the petitioners; counsel also concedes that. payment has already be en received. As far as other allot-'ences Le. actual allowance incurred bv the. petitioners for t1‘ansno;tation of their luggage, seliitravcmng allowance alougwith their tie tieclesed home-town 8.5 settle thev are retired empbvees, themfore, 1fter gettmg fmancia} assietance from V at: not. Fatyiugtu these employees, h‘e. DA mereased from time to time bV '3 the petitioners till date. of their a regaiti to the increase of’Iifouse Rent reel}? of resgiouclent No.2 at: 3 is that paid to me. employees‘on account of Len respondent. Company has been. i DA, as such the petitioners are also Therefote. it is held that respondent cteasecl HEA to the petitioners as per hy learned counsel for the petitioners petitioners haye opted foe voluntaxv August 1999 but they cordinued £11 in this respect. M1“. Koshy submits that payment has already been matie anti pendent famiiv meluhers to teach their ment allowmlee ave concelned. in this /wee*“/ the Central Government t. @ 3am, ethane, Felemgt 3mm L Wm...“un NH 200 mixmr WWW WW§WW WW WE" aamsnéw XI-HC-22 HEW, Wan—gr,W . v “w zoo WWW WW§WW aawanéw connectim} Mr. Koshy submiw that Accounts Department has takcn m1 objection that emplo $65 me damning transportation of thEir luggaga, 5611‘ travelling c}.p&nSES {Se 5dt15‘mcnt allowancc on forged bills Without settling at Mr. Shashlclnarau. . . .. . courmel 101‘ a tne ‘ penuousrs . . mgried w '43” V that . the empbyees are en itka‘; for their declared home town and even 301m? 0f ihe empioyees we“? mtaining Ihe company’s quarters. settlement allswance eVEii if they £16Cid€ to $Ett1€ at Some cdmr piact than rim disclai‘td he‘i’lm tmvn. Having ncard learned c vegard to the facts in case; this; )unsel for the patties and having is the nonnal practice that. when an employfsf: retires he is entitlsd far transportation charges, traveljing charges for himself and his dependent family members to reach his declared home town, therefore; respondent No.2 66 3 are directed to pay the petitioncm ti‘avcjling ‘mowance for the Employee himseif along with dependent membezs of his family. rmsportation of hcuse holds ans settihg aLiowemce. as per actual expenses mcnn‘ed in that respect by the employees upto the extent admissible. under the rules. It is made. clear that these ailowances will be admissible to the of those expenses and in this connection befope mekjilg payment respondents can as? for tickets oi‘vthe travellmg and also the :eceitit. else- be entitled to have. their actuaiiv settied at. the declared As far as the claim rega Itiing medical facilittr is concerned, petitioner. ‘ai‘ter satisfv’ing the respondents about incunmg They Win of tianspoitation. satisfaction that the employee. has. hometown. Art’s x @ XI—HC-22 HW,WW,W m manna; ‘uq zoo ‘£ A wwaa mm mw WW§WW éawanhr WWW given to Them as per 4th Pay Comission, whereas it ought to have been given as per 5‘11 Pay Commission. 1n this respect having considarau‘ thf. point raistci hy‘lea‘mcd-counSEi for thc pEtitioucrs, l am of the opinion that it is appmpu'ate. to diract the. respondents mat in case mw emplovee incurmd any medical expenses ac1mi$sible to him before thy retjpement 9s per medigagi"?u]ss and then thev are entitlerl for thJ :1ii¥srence 0n account of the rules of pay reviidon in pursuance 0:‘ 5th Pay Cmnu'lission Qii 3atisfying by th€ conccnmd employee at out the incurring of that expenses diifet‘enCe hetweetl 4th Pav C ommission 3w. 5L5 Pay Commission. if any, be paid to the petitioner —\s far the ciajm of the petitioners regarding Leave travel concession (LTC) is concerned, as the respondents company is already running in ioss and Centrai Groveimnem has also from - time to time restiicted the L C entitlement of the empioyees, I am of the opinion that loo“ g to the financial cmmch of the respondent Company it is n t appropriate to grant this relief to the petitioners, moreover, they ve already been retired and also in View of the fact that in the . se of DA inspite the fact that DA has heen frozen the petitioners rave been granted inmeased D‘A. by this orrler. Hence. this Ciaim cannot be allowed. As far as the Last e of the petitioners regarding benefit of additional firivilege of Earn d Leave (EL) and Half Pay Leaile has LI: and half pav ieave‘ which was the benefit of earned lea e the @ WW,W,W Wm mm‘ a zoo ma WW WW$€ WW%‘WW %31%1N11%:T arv mn'rement $011eme has been dated 28.8.2000 with Again in my opiniml,‘ CmxailmEnt of this benefit with retrospective. eff ct'canndt be considered Io be valid. ln the first place the peritio 61‘s took the voluntary letirement in pursuance of the scheme in uduced by the lesponriegf‘gompany for reduction of the wo n force and on the $ther hand curtailment of the benefit of eamed leave anti half pay leave wit retroepective effect. vide Circ tar Annexure P-2 dated 28.82000 by the tespondent. Company 1 contmry to the spirit. of circular Annexune P-2‘ Themefore‘ in my opinion the respondents are not entitled to curtail the benefl of eamecl leave 8a half pay leave u‘ll 27.8.2000, however. that he made eEective in the cases, when the Ienrement has been en’ cted wet. 28.8.2000. Accordingly, veepondents are divected to ve heueiit of encaehmem of Earned Leave & Half Pav Leave 37.3.2000 as per the prev Vh Shashiclharan. c eel for the petitioners submits that await fmm these claims in ome eases tesmmdente am charging mom license fee of the q alters. which ale provided to the employees by the responde t No.2 8r. 3 in comparison to the ‘outsidem To whom the cam employee$ were offered vo curtailed bv Circular 1‘6tr0Sp6CtiV6 cii‘cct. H sxum P—4 i the petitioner as per rules up to g scheme 1Q) to that date. t l 1. ny has also providetl the quarters. He further submits that some of the case some employees incurred expenses in respect of special disc-as s. which were not to be recovered fimn the emul vees concemed, hut the same have been recovered from the due navable to the em 3lovees. (EheW) l A r e h " c 1 o n a $a§sr WWW “E‘HW§WW mm “u h $WW A$ far aS these pointg are concernedl the petitioners ate at liberty to avail the separate remedy as admissible under the law. Tn the reeult, for the fogegeing masons, the responcients are directed to make. the paymsmts to the. petitioners in light of_ the aforeSaid dimen’ons given by ihe Court as early as pOSSible but not a later £11311 six monthe from today, as most 0f the peu''tigners took their mtirement 5 to 6 years back and they are waltjng for their retiral dues. Wn't Petitions stand disposed of m terms ofthe above order. Certified copy as yer ml esz. // . , dil— V. L_c.BHAD0° Roshanj— a Judge 0%W) m j 13/4;