/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR (M.? w.P.N0§561 Oof 2000 /QM//" : S N Sahu S70:Late Bharat §ahu, Pragati Nagar West Street=15aB Risaliy'Ehilai bis0:Durg (M.P) ?etiti0ner Versus /\ ? a ‘ i Réspondents 19 Hindustan SteelworkSkéonstructi0n Limited {A government of ind@a Undertgking) 1, bhakespeare Saranl,8th Floor Calcutta m,7OO O71 2. The Chairman-cum»Managing Director Hindustan,8teelworks Con$tn.Ltds \ 1, Shakespeare Sarani 8th Floor Calcu0ta a 700 O71 5a The General Manager Hindustan Steelworks Constn.Ltd. Lyme/V 0e (Mm/K KILIWLX6¢w7 Bhilai Uni+ (Kale) Cwué‘wyEQH, (gheMwQ/V_A‘%%wnw( P0: Bhijai; WQeagf' Dim; Burg (Mm) WRIT ?ETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ~ XI—HC-22 WW Ewm ' WW 2-5- 2005 Mr. CR. Sahu, fim’vo :ufe, appears an behah‘ of Mn D. Sasid‘namn, counsel for ‘fhe pei'ifioaer. Mr. R‘s. gaghei, Ac voca‘re appears on behalf of Mr; P5. Kashy, : xi ‘ro 3. i filed This wrif pefi’rion being aggrieved by The l 1 ’ro 3, whereby fhe respondenf have noT paid ifioner m Terms of. fhe 5% Pay Commission. Ti‘i‘ioner- is fhcrr he refir'ed on 313* December, 1997, from “rhe posf of Esenior Manager (Mechanical); on affaining fhe age of superannua‘rion. increase of pay and pensi effecf from in1-199é. ' direcfions issued by fhe C for implemen‘l‘a‘rion of The: 5 +h Pay Commission, issued circulars revising i . fhe pay scale of ifs empoyees wifh effecf from 1-1—1996 vide order » , da‘red 20+,“ January, 1998, and a circuiar was fur‘rher issued on 12% February, 1.998, fer fixa’l’i n of pay. Buf, 1he respondenfs are no'r paying The Eefii’ioner, +he pens on and refiral benefifs as per The 5f“ Pay” Commission, and also no paying grafui'i'y according fo fhe 51"” Pay ‘ Commission. counsel for responden‘rs N ‘Isel. ‘ The pefi‘i’ioner has acfion of respondem‘s Na. refiral benefi‘l's of The pel The case of fhe pe The W“ Pay Cbmmission recommended for m cf ‘i‘he Cen'rral Government employees wi‘fh The respondenfs aiso in comphance of The enTral Government Minisfry’ of STeei & Mines Heard boi’h fhe coue XI—HC—22 WW WW mmw ,2— In ‘fhe reply filed ty responden'rs No.1 ‘ro 3 i’r ‘nas been meni'ioried E ‘fha’l’ The respondenfs have never denied benefifs To i’rs employees but because of paucify cf fun :ls The benefifs of salaries and wages canno’r be given in full ex'renf. Thai is why 5+h Pay Commission benefiie were k exi’ended lo ifs employees from January, 19g8,‘,eyen facing acuTeg iiincmcial and economica crisis, nae responden'rgare exfending The benefii' of 5+1“ Pay Commis ion. In 'i’his connec‘iio i'i may poinfed ou‘f Thm‘ as ‘H’ie respondeni’ i Company is running in lo s Thai is why ihe Cen‘l‘r‘al Governmen’l came , forward for financial as isfance ‘ro i’he responder]? Company and in The firs‘r insfance Rs.79.99 crores non-plan loan was sancfioned by fhe Cen‘i'ral 5overnmen‘l' in ‘i' e year 1999—2000 'i’o mee‘i The liabili'l'ies of l s‘l'afu‘iory‘dues gran'l'ea‘ in fhe year 1999 as par‘i of comprehensive1 revival package, ‘ihereaf r, a non-plan loan of Rs.89.44 crores gran‘red in ‘lhe year 2001—2002 lo mee‘r fhe liabili‘iy of sfafu’l‘ory dues To The separafed employees an similarly, a non-plan loan of lasélil croresl gran‘red in fhe year 2002 2003 for paymenf of dues fo fhe employees of : The responden‘r HSCL. herefore, fhe Cen‘rral Governmenf has already f granfecl so much financia assisfance fo "rhe respondenf Company in order i fo make z‘he paymenf of separa’red employees as comprehensive revival f . l package. Hence, respon enfs No.2 & 3 should nof ignore fhe claim ofi fhose employees who af r affaining fhe refiremen‘r age demif‘led Their 1 Jm l l n . (meme) XI—HC—22 saw,m,W w‘ ? .SSW WW .................... 200 0 mamatw WW§WW A g ~ agwm Officé. As fhe pe'ri‘rioner raired in The year 1997, even af'fer fhe lapse of seven he has nopf been paid The refimi benefifs as The 5“ year‘s, nopf per- Pay Commission. As fhe pe‘rifioner had r-e’rir’ed on 31-12-1997 and he is waifing for 1 his refiml benefi‘rs since iasi' more fhcm seven“ years, and The 3 * responden‘rs have aireaz‘ry received assisfance from The CenTmi GovernmenT, Therefore, in The circumstances, The wriT peTiTion is i aiiowed, and The respondenTs are direcTed To sancTion all The reTiral benefiTs as admissible To The peTiTioner as per The 5m Pay Commission. ‘ No order as To cosTsi K ParTies are enTiTied for cerTified copy of This order. /L i // sed— AD0° Sonia L_C.BH sedge