IK THE HlGH COURS OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO^-®^ OF 2001 Petitioner —Versus- BESPONDEBTS <•!, Smi.M.P.PtJSHPA, AGEB ^yYrs. tf/e.Late P.CJaappan H/o.Kezhoth House Neqr Kalrali Talkies PO:Balusseri, Kozbikode Kepala, PIN;673 612 Union @S India Threugfa The Secretary Miaistry o£ S-fceel Shram Sakti Bhawan New Delhi. Hindus-tan Steelworks Construction Limited, (A Govt.of India Undertaking) aegd.O.fficesl, Shakespeare - Sarani, 8th Floor Calcutta -71 The Ghairman-cum-Managing - Director, Hindustan Steelworks- Gons-fcraction Limited, 1, Shakespeare Sarani, 8th Ploor', Calcutta-71 The General Manager Hindustan Steelworks- Construction Liaited, Bhilai Unit, POs BhJ.3.ai,Darg Chattisgarb. WRIT PETIIION UHDSR ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE coNsn'ruTioN ©F INDIA XI-HC-22 3:n^r^r ^ich3TT^T Sb^icb^f^f |^^^lN^B *> 3^';;£fFn^PT,^Tii^^Ko, (®i<ni^y 3TT^?T M5|Ct» ^THCTT^^TI^l_l^^-.^J-3^A ^ 200 t^^' 3TI^T ^cnw^n^r 28.4.2005 Mr. B.R. Ghosh, c<tuusel for tlie rjeliuoner iu W.P. No.2/2001. Mr. D, Shashidhai'ail. Advocate fbr the petitioners 5569/2000,5571/2000,514200 205/2001, 468/2001, 184^ Advocate wiih Shri C,K-, Sah.u. ^n W.P. Nos.3081/2000, 4205/2000, >l,54/2001,55/2001,102/2001, ?/2001, 1261/2002, 1379/2002 & 1542/2002. coilnsel 7{^4/: '44/2(j)02 Mr. P.P. Saliu. Nos. 220/2002,431/2002, Mr. Thakur Vijay Siiig^i for respoiident No. 1 iii all th^ Mr, V.V.S. Murthv. Sr| W.P. Nos.431/'2002, I- albreiiieiitioaed petitions Mx\ De^hinukh, counscl for resp^] As ::ul ihese peuuous volunlan7 retlrement undeil mtroduced by rcspondent y< (P&A)/ ESTT/ 16/ 88 dated /RR/531/M-7221 dated PER/RR/531 daied 28.6.19p time upto year 2000, reUef] petitioils air covered by th|e therelore, these petitions oixler. ait Gbl<4l^l41'l ^l^<rtT^'te^<Rt<^« ^3?rf^TT3?T^T for the petitioners m W,P, '2002 & 1354/2002. L, Assistaiit Soiicitor Ocneral of India wrlt peUtioiis. Counsei tbr respondent No.2 & 3 m & 1379/2002 aiid m rest. of the P.S. Koshv, J^dvocate with Mr. Vuiod ^ndent. No.2 & 3. r^late to Uiose employees wlio icok ihe the Voluntai^ Retirement Scheme lRo/2 & 3 vide HO circular No. GM (LO.ll. 1988, HO Circulai- No. PER 19th 11.1993. & HO Cm-'ular No. 5t55, which was exieiided from lime ro claimed by tlie petitionei's i& tiiese I^e pomts raised in W.P. No. 2/2001, r^ being disposed of by this common 18jth/ l9t55 XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T RFTWSTI^T T^^rfi'cT ^HT^^f T(^ 3^' •<(l<(M'i|, iE<>Tfi^<t<g, (^diyy t^l ^5(<!h ^mv{i ^,^^, ----T—.--^^ ^Q^ ^re^' rcspon<(lents retulai coiidsel At the outset it niav be have uot deiiied tlie adniissifc but thetr case is that diie to fmaiici0i cruncii scheme for rcducing ihe wc unancial burden, In the mentioued that respondeiits eaiployces bzit bccazise of p< cmd wages caiinot be given iri The tlrst claim iiia.de ] enutled for ttie arrears of 31.12.1997. Leai-ned ciaployees of respondcnt No| Commissioii aiid ttiereafter, PubUc Utidertakmgs w.e,L circulai' dated 20.1.1998 eiaployees of respondeiit No. Allowaace (C.D.A.), they arc| from 1.1.1996, but tiie emf rcspondent No,3 ha.ve beeii| 1.1.1998 aiid have been from 1.1.1996to31.12.199l Mr. Koshv, counsel f<|] except aiTears tbr ttiis perio^: rlie dues iiave been pmd to t|l; <:bi^I<n41^ ^i^<viT^te^<f^^l< ^3Tf^T3Tr^T |m.entioiied th^t respoiideut No.2 & 3 bjiUn' of tlie benefits to the petitioners, concera is nuuitag t& loss aacl tUev inU-oduced voluntaiv rctirenieni di'kmen tbrce in onler to reduce ihe ofrcspoiident No.2 & 3 it has been have never deuiecl benefits to its kiicin7 of fuuds fhe bciiefits of salan" fall exrent. by the peutionei's is rhat they are Pav Cotmnission from 1,1,1996 to for tlie petitioiiera submite that 2 & 3 wcre giveu beuefite of 4th Pay l5r11 Pav Commission was given to all 1.1.1996 and m this amiiecuon a (^iinexure P-1) was issued. Suice the l2 & 3 fall under tlie Centi'al Deamess also cligible for 5dl Pay C^mmission )iovees of Bhiiai Uiiit working under allowed the said benetits only fi*om ofthe said benefits for the period dep|dved 'r respondcnt No.2 & 3 siibmits ihat i.e. from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1997 aU ).e petitiouei's. ^ XI-HC-22 (T9 3^r ^Ni<n<i, ^xflwi^, Ic«vti<riy 3ll^l^5(Ct» ^Tra^n'gwTgT""'"""*"""4" w^ 200 W^T^T Rvlicb3=n^T sb^ict)1y(^a 3TI^T ^«11W^rfer -3-j rcspo|n.dent tlie Rs^. cor|xpaay in tliis connection, if we| 10.11.1988, at tiie tiaie of in|trc schcine thc cmployees of they wiil be paid edl the ben^l mcludmg ihe CPF, Eanied Ije^ Coiupaiiy, gratuity, salaiy for to actiial fare of the class bv ibr self aad faimly proccedi|ig reimbm'semeni of acnial expen<i persoiial eftect as per T.A. Rule^ Since the respondent tiie Central Goveninieiit came| thc rcspondcnts-Coiapany andj tlie. lu-st mstance Rs.79.99 rlie (^ntt'al Govenimeut in tlie of statuton' dues gi'anted in package, tliereafter, a non-plar( fchc vcar 2001-02 to mcct sepai'ated employees aiid simi|iai crores graiited iii the yeai' 20p2 euxployees of respondent ^^oveiTiraent has gi'aiited so respondent-ConipEOiy in ordcr] empioyees as compreiiensive sought voluutai3r rctit'ement, as| loolc into the Aniiexiire P-2 clated inttrodiiction of voluntaxv retu'enient No.2 & 3 were informed that itfits as mentioned in the circidar Ive eiicashment a.s per rules of the notice period and TA. equivalent Re^l to which the emLployees is entifled to recorded hoine town and L^lnu'e mcun-ed for u'aasportation of croilss 19|99 <=bi<<t<n<{l^ *ii*4<nT^fs^ft ^^K ^'<3:rf^R'3T^ST ^xpaay is ninning in loss that is why Ifoxwarcl for j&naiicial assistaiice to las mformed bv Mr. Murthy that in non-piaii loan \vas sanctioned by ^ear 1999-2000 to meet the liability fp9 as part of coinprehensive revival loaii of R3,89.44 crores graated ia tlic iiabilitvr of ^tatiiton7 diies to i^ai-ly, a non-plaii ioaii of Rs.61.11 )|02-03 for paymeut of dues to the itlSCL. Accoi-dmgty, the Centxal liiiiich finaacial assistaiice to the to r&akc the paymcnt of scparatcd ^evival package aad tlie petitioners per respoudeut company's scheme, 20102 uuiiiilbiiied lowuidy ilie couiphiiy for redu^tion m the ^gj^g^p^ XI-HC-22 w^r^r f^?TN?3Tl^T $h^I<^^(T -^ ^TOCf *<i*<clii dwrai ^NKrt^, ^xfl^4!^, Rldl^i 311^1 45<<ft •«*«4**»»l»«»t«»»»»«« ^ 200 f^p^< 3:n^?T^cnw^^^ ^l therefbre, respondent No.2 &| entitied for the bene.nt of 5th fl of aii'eai's for the penod fi'om by the petitiouers, as the peti^ thev have took the volunt^ <=M^l<rt<flTl ^ll^<A ^tec^'<(^^« ^3lKi^3TI^?T 3 should not ignore the sacrifice made by tlie petitioners by seepdrig voliintary retii'eiiient, Thus, ia iny opinion, ia view of all ipie above facts thc petitioners are av Commissiou aad also the benefit l.1.1996 to 31.12.1997 a.s clauned ioners are a class separate because 3iy retireinent aad being retired csiiployecs they rcqziired sojiic uaancial assistaace for dieir settlement after their retii-eiB|ent. The empioyees, who ai-e still workmg, are gemng theii' sal^ries biir the reriiTd employees ai<e whoUy dependaiit on fhe rctil'al benefits whatever they rcceived. Pai'ticzilaily when rcsponden] iuiaELciEU. assistaiicc bv thc Q No.2 & 3 have been rcndered ^iitral Govcniinent, th.ev aie undcr obligation to pay tlie eniployees who took the voh.il uiwoduced by the respoudent respondent No.2 & 3 shall paj to the petitioners for the perio^ by the petitioners. Now, commg to the secl the petitioners regarcliiig D,A, ancl iiltimatelv nicreased to 4 ot [5TA Pav Commission to tiie [itaiy retireme.nt as per the scheme ^io.2 & 3, As such, it is directed that ^ the aiTears of 5th Pav Commission 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1997, as claimcd t)iid poiat i-aised by the counsel for [ which was 38% up to 31.6.2000 .% froxn 1.7,2000. as mentioned in 31ause (b) of Peiragraph No,^ of thc pctition, Counscl for thc petltioncrs' contention is tlial] paid 22% DA onty, wliereas till 30.6.2000 tfae petitionei-s werc hey wei-e entitled for ttie mcreased DA. As agaisist this Mr. Ko^hv subuuts that as per cu'cuiai' of T&^^fe^L XI-HC-22 3TI^TcpT f^ri^3:n^T sb^JcbyRd Sh^icb^ ^^ 3^r ^NW^, ^Tdwi^, f^fwy 3TI^T .v^J *ll+1dl $ft^|Ct> ?..z.l M5|C»» <?.\.. ^ 200 3TI^T ^RTRR ^rf^T sh conc^nied tlke 43tS Minisuv of Steel dated 14.7.1 from 1.4.1999 the additioni|J miancial cruiich aad loss to| agaia I would like to menti^n mentiotied in the earlier pai|i workiiig em.ployees ax-e conc^n retii'ed emiplovees ^vho took whoUy dcpen.dcut zipon the conuibution of tliese persoi^s volutitaiv 1'etircmetit iii otxieit worknien ui the corapao.y so the coinpaay, respondent NO..J towards tibiesc eniployees, a^ beiiefits ai'e the monev on Thercforc, rcspondent No.2 & i-ate to the petitioners till the Mr. Koshv txied to i-aise th<^ approached the Hon'ble Constitiition of India for release the DA etc aiid he been dismissed bv the Hon?b1 the pctitiouei's woi.ild be at Coiapaiiy Ibr iacrease of DA compaiiy eaiiis profit. But a^ to the workuig employees oui the workuig enxployees. As cM^fo4iTi ^i^<rtT^te^<Ri^-i< ^3rf^R'3Ti^T .999 (Annex'ui'e R-2) niade effective D.A, was frozen on account of the company, In this conncction, [^n the saiae pomt wiiich has been of this oiTier that as 1'ar as the "4lnied, it ma^7 be legal but for fhe voluntaiv retii'eiaent aiid they are Iretiial beacfite aud lookia.g to thc by coming forvvaixi tbr seekmg to contriltute tbr recluctioii of the to reduce the fmaacial burden on & 3 ai'e expected to inore generous after their reureinent only retiral (vvhich they caii prolong thcrr life. shoiild pay the DA at the iricreased |date they took voluntaiy retirement. poiat tliat sorae of the eniployees Cozu-t under Articlc 32 of thc ulectiiig ttie respondent Company to ti^s siihmitted that sajd petition has Apex Coiirt with the du'ection tlxat |ibextvr to approach tlie respondent lui teruis of tiie schem.e iii casc the |:aiii m my numble opmion it appMes |y and the petition was also filed by itientioned eai'lier that tlie petitioners Ap^x dulectuis h^s ^ESSS!—-—1 XI-HC-22 ^TI^T^FT t^1W37T^T $RTri^^<T $W ^T 1 ® S^^qTqi^RT, ^Tn<i<i<o,f^dW^< 3ll^lM51Ct» __^^f s tTrawaww*"***"""1^^" ^ 200 ^TI^T 5?<TTW ^cT hereirs. are SL class sep5ir2Lte,| respondeiit No.2 & 3 eveii the Central GoveniBicut tlich' ttierefore, they should pay t^ the Ceii.Tral Govenimeiit retu'einent, As far as tlie 1501111 witb AUowaace is coQccmcd, the| mcreased HRA could not b^ paucin7 of ftmds. Biit w^ directed to pay the iaci-ease^. eiititied for iiicreascd HRA.I No.2 & 3 should pay thc ii^ niles. The other pomt i-aised| is that in soisie c^ses thel retii'eiaient iii tlie xaoutli o9 scrvices ti21 •Jime, 2000, buf i.e. from l.9.1999 tffl tlieir paid to thein. In this tTsp^ct, has alreadv beeu made andl tliat payinent has ah'eady be|en As far as othcr allow^iices the petitioners for ti'atispoj^ aJlowance alougwith tlieii' d^ deciai'ed honie-town & cbi^fa41Ti ^i^<nT^'tec^'<Ri^dl< ^3:rf^T3TT^T they are i^tired eBiployee^^ tlierefore, ^fter gcttuig fiiiancial assistance fiomi aie uot payiug tu these eniployccs, lle DA mcreased from time to rime bv ^ the petirioiiers till date of theu' regarcl to tlie inci-ease of House Rent rcply of respondcnt No.2 & 3 is that paid to tlie employees on account of [en rcspondent Company has been DA, as such the petiUouers are also Therefore. it is held that r€si3ondent crcascd HRA to tlic pctitioners as pcr by leanie<l coiinsel for tlie petitioners petitioners have opted fi3r voluntan' August 1999 but tliey coutiiiued ia. the salar\r for Uiis interveuiug period fcictual date ot retii'cment has not been ^ct, Mr. Kosby siibmits that paymeut the petitionex^* coixnsel also concedes received. Lc. actual allowance incurrcd bv [Tation of tlieii' luggage, setf'-traveUmg i^eDdent faiaily members to i^acli their ailowauce ai'e concei-ned, iu this settl^inent XI-HC-22 Cf>9. 3:^':5TFn^w, (?T{i+i<i<o, tai<ni^y 3ll^l M5|cb ^ll^dlshNicb '' ' ' ' '*"' Wq[ 200 f^^ 3TI^T^T Rl<rii<h3T^ST aw^^rf^T SCTW^T ^TT^FT ^«nw^1^cT -1 eonnectioa Mr. Koshv subniil takcn an obiectiou that ejLiiplol thctr Iziggagc, self traveUiiig c^\ forged biJls witfaout settling at some of the employees were Mr. Shastiidhai'sin, coui^ tlie eraployees ai'e entitled foi^ decide to settle at sonic othcr p} Havmg Iieai'd ieanied c\ rcgard to The facte m case, rhis| eraployee retires he is eutitled chai'ges ibr himself aad his deij declarcd home tcwn, thereforc, pay tlie peuuoners u'avellmg ^ aloug with depemlent membej house liolds aiid settling a] incuiTed ui tliat respect bv1 adinissiblc uuder the rulcs. It| \vlU be admissible to tlie respozidents ahoul' mciining ] coniiection before makiiig payi]] of tlie travelliiig aiid also tlie also be cntitled to have their actuallv settled at tiie declai'ed As fai1 as the claim reg^ixl -tiic .<-• JLULt.UJ.JL ^JL1C.V<*.LJI*^.^ ^J ^y f-tfas <shNl<n4I<ri ^i^<nT^te(:^'<Ri^i< ^3T^T3T(^T t^ that A.ccQunte Department has ^ees ai'e claiaiiiig traiispoi'tation of tpcnses &• scttleoicD.t allowance on Ittieir declared home town and even rer^ii'ting the compatiy's quaners. sel for the petitiouers argued fhat settlement allowance even if they lace fhaii fhc declared hoiuc town. |)misel tbr tbe paities and havmg |is the noniial pracnce that when aii ^pr traasportatiou charges, travellmg leiident feimilv Biesiibers to reach his respondent No.2 & 3 are dirccted to bJlowaace tbf thc emplo\ree himself l-s of liis family, traasportation of tlowaiice as per actiial expenses tlie eiuployees iipto thc extent lis madc clear that thesc allcwaaccs petitloners after satlstvuig the of those expenses aiid m this r^nT respondents caa ask for ticlcets ^eceipt of traiisDOitatiGU. They wiU Isatisfactiuii that the eniployee has. lliomerown. Imp: medical facili^ is couceiTied, 1 ' A^JJL\-JL JLi3» LAJL<a.l. ULi<- k^.A.S-' ^s^s XI-HC-22 ^n^T^r RTli<=b3TI^T STO^^cf ^1*1^1 (b*JJ€(-> ^(2^ 3:5cT '<(|*||<<1<|, t9T{)wi<o, (siciwy t^fl ^5|<!f» •'»••<>•*••^^* ^ •">*•<•*••••^ 200 3n^T ^WIW^^^ given. to tliem. as per 4th Pay been given as per 5rl1 Pay considered the poult raiscd fcty'lcarned. counscl for the pctitioncrs, I am of the opmion that it is that m case any employ^ aduiissible to him. before th^ theu thev ai'e entitled for tli^ pay revision ui piirsuaace o~\ tlie concenied employee a^ diftei^ence hetweeti 4ttl Pav C| ^iiy, be paid to the petitioner As fai' tlie claiin of t| <=M<<I<n<n<ri ^i*«ril^tel^'<^«i< ^3?rf^T3TI^T pooiBii^sioxi, whei-eas it ought to have poiximission, In tliis respect liaviag conccssion (LTC) is conce ali-eady ninumg m loss aa< time to time restricted the L' appropriate to direct the respondents ;e incun'ed any medical expenses rctii'eraent as per medical niles and difterence on account of tlie rules of 5th Pay C/omiiussiori on satisfying by •out flie mcun-mg of tiiat expenses vnnmission &, 5th Pay Commissioo., if bie petitioners regaicluig Lcave travel as thc iespondents compaGiy is rA-ed, C^nu-al Govenimeiit has also from IC etititlemenr of the employees, I am of the opinion that lookt|ig to the finaiici-U cninch of tiie respondent Corapaiiy it is n<\ petitioners, caorcovcr; they ^t appropriate to gi^aiit tliis relief to the lave alreadv been retired aiid also m view of tlie fact tliat m tlie c|ase of DA iiispite tlie tact tiiat DA has been frozeii the petitioners piave l^eea graoited mcTeased D.A, by this ordei\ Hence, this claiui bee.31 cuitailed is concenied, -*At IS f^V^,ible to thc cannot be $dlowed. As fai' as tiie last clam|i of tlie petitioners rcgai'diiig beuefit of additioual privilegc of Eamc|d Leave (EL) and Half Pav Lcavc has icounsel ibr rlic petirioners ai'gued tfaat the beuetlt of eaiiied lea^e aiid h^Jf pay ieave, which was ULi~i.<-JJ.A<wJL .2' ^U.At-S.^-A, *~3~»JLAJ.J.S--Y U-i. ^. P-LJ W; the XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T R^i<=b3Tr^r $b<4i<ft ^t^ct ^xcT^T^l^Sf, ^XtlWR57l<s«v1W^< 311^1 M5<c»» WTCTTvhW* '>^^''<<K' ^•?^"" •^ 200 3TI^T 6«TTW^l^cf volilintaiv ialroduced workiticn eiiiployees were offered czirtailed bv Cu'culai' Anrl rctrospectivc eifect, Agam. beuefit with rettospective eff^ct !n the tu^t place the peTitioi|iers pursuance of tlie schenie ia^rodi; for rcduction of tlie czirtailmLcnt of the bencfit of| reti-ospecuve etlect vide Cu'c4 the respondeiit Company i^ Annexure P-2. Therefore, isi| entitled to cui'tml the benefit 27.8.2000, howevcr, that ca4 Uie rctirement lias been efi^ wspondeiits ai'e dit-ected to Leave & Half Pav Leave td 27.8.2000 as ner the prevaili^t Mr. Shashidharan. apai't fi-om these claims m ^ morc license fee of the q^ euiployees by the respoiide| outsiders to whoin tlie coia^aav He farther siAiiiits tliat in| iiicuiTed expenses m respect| be rccovered from ttie empli been 1'ecovered fix>ui tlie duesl cbi^[<n41'i ^i^'^te^'<f^^i< ^3:rf^T3T1^T retjreinent ^cheixLe has been exm-e P-4 dated 28.8.2000 witfa iii niy opiDiou. cuilaitaicnt of this ?ct caiuiot be considered to be valid. took the voluntaiy rcurement in by the rcspondeut coxapany force and on the other haad earned lcave aad half pay leavc with lar Annexiire P-2 dated 28.8.2000 by ^ contran7 to the 5»piriT of circulai' my opinion the respondents are not of eained leave & hatf pay leave till bc Biade effectivc in the cascs whcrc ^cted w.e.f. 28.8.2000. Accoixlingty, ?ive beueflt of encasliment of Eamed the petitiouer as per niles up to ig scheixiie zip to tliat date. for tlic pcddoners submite that ome cases i-espondents ai-e chax^mg lai'tere. which are provided to the at No,2 & 3 in. com.p^ri^ou to the ^any has also provided tlie quarters. sonie of the case souic CBiployecs |of special diseases, wliich werc not to bvee^ coticenied. biit the same have payable to die employees. co^nscl (^i^itL ^^ iffltiiiffTmiirriiiiai XI-HC-22 3TT^TcRT f^FTW^TT^T sb^w «^a Roshan/- < 07 \J^ ?^ ^' 3^ -<<Ni<<t<i, ^Tnwic, R(dW^< W^T <4?|c»l HI^C^I Sih^icb^..^.e3lc.^ ^ 200 t^^c W^T ^RTTW ^rf^cf ~l< As far as these point<$ iibei-ty to avail tlie scpai'ate In the rcsiilt, for the fo directed to make tlie payme^ aforesaid direcrioiis giveti hy later thaii six raonths from. t| tlieir retirciaent 5 to 6 vearsl retiral dzics. Wnt Petitions stmid clis) Oertifled copy as per ni| ^re ooncei'ned, the petitioners are at rejncdv as admissible uuder tJie law. jregomg rcasons, dic respondeuts arc le^its to th.e petitioners in l^ht of the (he Conn as early as possible biit not |>day, as inost of the petitioners took back aiid tliey ai'e waitiug for their bosed of iii terms of tlie above order. les. <=bi<4i<n4iTi ^i^<nT^te^F)'<F3i«i< ^3ri^T3TI^?T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (<^^r) •^: ^^-