IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHASTISGARH AT BILASPUR y w.P.No. %01‘ o£ 200g. M.P.Ra3an, aged 58-1/2 Yr S/o . T .P.Philipose Ex.Sr. Chargeman (Me ch) HSCL/Bhilai, P.No.12062 R/e.Elavina Madam Vadakkedathu Kavu.P.0. (Via) Adeor Dist :Pathanamthitta Ker‘ala - PIN: 691 529 Petitione r -Uersus- Respondents Hindustan Steelworks Canstn Limited (A Govt. cf India Undertak1ég ) 1, Shakespeare Sarani, 8th Ffoor Calcutta - 71. The Chairman—cum-Managing Director Hindustan Steelworks Constn.Limited 1, Shakespeare Sarani, 8th Floor Calcutta - 71 The General Manager Hindustan Steelworks §onstn.Limited Bhilai Unit PO: Bhilai, Dist :Burg Chhatisgarh. WRIT PETITION UMBER ARTICLES 226/227 OF TEE CQNSTI‘I‘U‘I'ION OF INDIA § ... H J. M1: i1 Shashid‘uarm‘ Advocate far the petiticnars 5569/2000, 5571/2000, 5112001, 54/ 2: 01, 55;;2001, 102]2001, H2001, i2é1f2002: 1379i’2002 & (J1 .ns’el for the petitioners 1n WfP. 44jv2002 3n 1354/2002. .1, A$sistmlt Soiicitor {knm‘al of India writ pctiiicum. V Mr. V.V.S. Mumajv'. Sr WP, Nos.431,l’20(}2, 744] 2( aforemeutioned petitions Mr. Defshmukh, counsci for rc$p< As ail me$€ pen‘xiona; 1‘ voiumary ran'remem 111K163 introduced by mspondenf i (P&A§ I ESTT} 16} 88 dated J RR/53 1/M-723 1 datmii PERIRR/531 darned 23.61 time upto yaar 2000. reh peijtiorls am covemd by 205i2001, 4:58]2001, 184 1 42]200i. My. PP. Nos.22a;l§002, 431/2002, 7 Mr. Thakur Vijay $i11g. hr r6s13011d€nt NO 1 in all 11K hJ Salim. cor L. Advocate with $111 (1R Sahu. ‘m WP. N0s.3081[2000, 4205jg€300f Counsel for respondent. MU: 6e, 3 i1: )02 83.1379/2002'and in regt of th€ RS. Koshy, Advocate with Mr. Vinéd mdcnt. No.2 ff. 3. Elam 1:0 1110536 empioyrctas w'm) Look [he the Voluntary Retirenmm $ch€me 50.2 F» i3 Vick. Hf? Ciltular Bio. GM G.11‘19$8, HO PEP. ] 1§’h 11.1993. $3 HO Circuiai‘ N0. , which was €xmuded {mm time. 110 ‘ ; claimed by the. phtitionem in these i . points raised i11 WP. No.2]2001, ardmx Circular No. 1 9 e; ' - ‘ h ‘0 XI-HC-22 3am,m,m mm . wp sapm mmg 200 ....... ...... m .......... . ...... WWW WWOMW %31%w$n%31 28.4.2005 I in WP Mr. BR. Ghcsh, C(‘huxissl fax thi: pcLiLieucr we.2i2091. ‘ 3am, aiming, W Wm ‘ ”4‘ Ql%‘1» mm gi 200 um mag-mam wwweiwm .h 2". $31§W3T§$T AI th€ outset it may be mentioned, that refspomient No.2 8r. 3 have not denied tha admissib ility of the bene ts to the yetitioners, but thdr ca§e i§ that msponsls'nts cohcem is running m loss and {11m to‘ fmancial crunch they introduced voluntan’ mtimmem scheme for reducing the workman fame m. order i0 xeduce the tinancial burden. 111 the vetum 0f res‘gondent No.2 (‘31. 3 it has been mentioned that respondents have never denied benefits to he empioyeee but because nf paucity 0f funde the heneflts of salary and wages cannot be given fuli extent. ‘fhe first claim made by the petitioners i$ mat‘they are entitled for the arrears of S Pay Commiegion from 11.1996 to 31.12.1997. Lem‘ned cot sel for the petitieners submits that empleyees of respcndent N ’2 6e 3 were given benefits 0f 4th Pay Commission and themafren 5"? Pay Commission was given to 311* 1.1:1996 and in this connectidn a exune P4} was issued. Since the employees of respondent N 8o 3 fall under the Central Deamese Allowance (C.D.A.), they a1“ alsc eligible fog‘5‘h Pay Commission from 1.1.1996, hm the em )ieyees of Bhii‘ai Unit workmg under respondeni No.3 have be allowed the said benefits only from 1. 1. 1998 and have been (lei Lved‘ of the said benefits for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.19 . Mr. Koehy. counsel f r respondent No.2 6e 3 suhmits that except aneais for this peri ‘E‘nblic Undertakings wet‘. c'ixcum. aared 20.1.1998 e o 2 Le. from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1E’97 all the dues have been paid to t 1e petitioners. 7/7 / \A/is, _..a—~n..a n O 1: m 9 o WW,W,W 3mm ”W “K M wwwuu... 'ai zoo nu" mmw mm&wm 9'3 ,_ %a¥%¢ran%$1 in this connection, if we 100k inm the Annexum P-Q dated i0.11.1988. a: the me of introduction of voluntary retirement Schemé the 6m1310yccs of rcspond‘cnt No.2 61': 3 WEI-3. informtd that mev Wm be. paid all thé benums as menu'oned in the Circular including the CPF‘. Earned Lez ve encashment as per rules of the Campallv, gratuitv, salarv for the noticg period and TA. equivalent To actua} fare of the ciass bv Rail to which the employees is entitled for self and family proceeding to recorded home town and i‘ejmbmeemem of actual expena'umre incuned for transportation of personal effect as per T.A. Rulets. Since the iesgoneient company is running in loss that is Why the Cential Government came fonveu‘d for financial aesistance to the respondents-Company and as informed by Mr. Mm‘thy that in the first instance Rs.79.99 crores non-pian ioa‘n was sanctioned by the Central Goveniment in the vear 1999-2000 to meet the liability of statutoxy dues granted in 1 J as part of Comprehensive xevival package, thereafter, a non-p loan of Rs.89.4’l crores gmnted in the vear 200 1-02 to meet e liability ofx etatutogr dues to separated employees and rlf, a non-plan loan of Rs.61.11 crores granted in the yeal '2- )3 for vaymem of dues to the emplovees of respondent ‘SCL. Accordingly, the Central Government has gimited so much financial assistance to the respondent-Company in order to make the payment of separated employees as complenensive ival package and the petitioners sought voluntaiy retnement, a per respondent company’s scheme, - - ie 1 'a s' 2 v XI-Hc-22 RW,W,W Wm mm Ea zoo "ununn XI—HC-22 mm,m,m Wm ‘ "n... u. 13)”... mm mam wmw " mmafrgram mm y— 5"- %a%w311%m Ministry? of Steel dated 14.7‘ 999 (Annexure R—Q) made eEective {tom 1.4.1999 the addition ‘ D.A. was frozen on account of fmancial crunch and loss to tht company. In this connection; agam i would lik€ to menu' n ‘the. same paint which has been mentioned in the earlier pax of this oxfler that as far as the working employees are cone mecL it may be legal but for the retired employees who took t1 e voluntmy retirement ant! they are whouv dependent upon the redial benefits and looking to the conu‘ibun‘on of 616% pcrso s bv coming fonvam for seekiog vollmtarv tetimmem. in. orde to conn‘ihuxe for reduction of the workmen in the company so to reduce the. financial burden on the company, respondent No: 8r. 3 are expected to more generous towards these employees: a after their retirement only ren'ral benefits are the money on vhich tnev can prolong their life. Therefore, respondent No.2 a should pay the DA at the increased Late to the petitioners till the tiara they took voluntary retirement. Mr. Koshy tried to mise th ooint that some of the emyloyees approached the Hon’ble AP x Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for dil ctjng the respondent Company to release the DA etc and he 1 s submitted that send. petition has been dismissed bv the Hon‘b > Apex Court with the direction that the petitioners wouid be at ‘beny to approach the zespondent Company for increase of DA in terms of the scheme in case the company earns protit. But a: am in mv numbie opinion it applies to the workmg employees on ' and the petition was also tiled by XI-HC-22 w? 2 3am, We,m Wm Wm...ununu. [sum ax zoo u wm mF®a mmw mw Wm 37mm thev are mtined em‘kshveeg’. timrefom, herein are a class separate, responcienr No.2 85 3 even after gettiEg $1anéia} assistance from the Central Gavermnem. the}: are net payingm these employees, rherefore, thev should pay th‘e. DA maeased from time. to rime by the Central Govemment ti) rEmEmEDI. A5; far as the point wiaa regard to the increase of House Rent A‘llcwance is concerned, the‘ reply of resiiondeut NQQ 6:: 3 is that paid to the cmplovecs on account of 8ut when vespondent Company has been. (iirected to pav the increaSed DA, as such the petitioners axe also enmled for increased ‘I-IRA. No.2 a3 3 sheuld pay the. Hereaeed iiRA to the petitioners as per ruics. The ether pom? mised‘ is that in some cases 111e- retirement m the mouth oi‘i August 1999 but they centinued in t the salan for thie intervening pen‘od Equal \ date 01" retirement has not been me petitioners n11 date of their increased HRA could not. be paucity of fund& Therefore, it is held that respondent htv leamexi counsel for the petitionere petitioaers ham: opted for voluntary eervices tili J1me. 2000, bu ie. from 1.9.1999 tiu then paid to rhem. in thie resp has alreaziv been made and that payment has already be As far as ether allowa the neu‘tionerg fOr transpo; :ajlowémce alougwith their de declmed hometown 8r, settlé em. M1: Koshv suhmits that payment the petitioners? counsel aiso concedes en received. nees Le. actual ailowauce incurred by ration of their irxggzage. self-travemng ‘peudem family members to reach their kment allowance are concerned, in this \ .1, 66 I win be admis3iblc to thé mspondents aboui‘ inmmiug connection before mglaing pawl of the travelling and also the also be cntitltd to have thtir actuauv sewed at the cieciarcd As far as: thf: claim raga homatown. 1 1 petitioners v afttf $ati3fvmg thc of thOSC exptmsm and in this mm respondents can disk for tickets Thev will w hmmwm‘mnon. sati5factieu that the. cmploytsé has. A" receipt Ming mcdjcal facility is couccmcd, .uuc; A) iuai. Lu: mcx'iiga; La?$%§%§S ., _. .. XI-HC-22 mailman, 561w, mag: W mm .Ef.€..»2.\§;\. W 200 . g mmw WW§WW P—rl r‘ $31f$rqm connectjgn Mr. Koshv subums that Accounm Department has taken that of an objection empiovees are claiming transportation thdr luggagtt, self travelling cxp‘ausss fie .Stttltmcut albwancc on forgal bills Without settling at their deemed hom€ town and even some, of the emp‘myees were retaining the comyany’s quarLers. Mr. ShaShidharan. counsel for the petitioners; argued that the emnlovees are entitleci for settlement aEewance eve11 if they {lecide to Settle at some ether pEace than the cledal'ed home tuwn. Having heam mauled counecl for the parties and havmg vegard to the facts in case, this is the normal practice that when an employee mtjres he is entitled far nt—u'xsportation charges, travemttg charges for himself and his elep‘endent famt} members to reach his 'declared home town, therefore, ‘Iespondent No.2 6:5 3 are. directed to pay the petitioneis travelling amowance for the employee himseif along with dependent membe'ts of his family. transportation of house hoic1s anti. settiing a‘Liowanoe as per acniel expenses incurred in that i‘esnect bv the emolovees upto the extent admissible under the rules. It is made clear that these allowances XI-HC—22 Wm Wm \~ ‘? 1. .‘A W 200 mam mm WW mmw§a given to them as per 4th Pay been given as per 5Tb Pay ‘ n.-ommission, wheteas it ought to have a.lommissian‘ In thie respect having considered tha point raised b}"1§a111ed‘c01mS€.l for th-3 pEtitioncrs, I am of th€ opinion that it is that in case any employ admi$$ibie to him before thy than thev m‘e entitied for the pay fEVlSlOD 111 pm§llafl€€ OZ T116 concmncd 611113103766 at difftamnce between 4‘31 Pav C any) be paid to the petitioner" . v. As far the claim of the petiticners regaxdiiig Leave travel concessien (LTC) is concexned, as the xeepondents company is ahead? running m ioss and genn‘al Government has also from time to time restricted the L C entitlement of the. empioyees, I am g to the mcial crunch of the respondent Company it is n t appropn'ate to giant this relief to the petitioners, moreover, thev View of the fact that in the been frozen the petitioners Lave ‘heen granted hicteased DA. by this ordei: Hence. this c‘lqim cannot be allowed. r of the petitioner regarding benent of atiditional ilrivilegc of Earnd Leave {EL} anti Half Pay Leave has been curtailed is concenied, counsel f r the petitioners argued that the benefit of eained lea appropn’ate. to direct the respondents ae. incuned. am’ nmdioal expenses retirement as per medical rules and difference on acceunt. 0f the rules of ‘ 5th Pav Cemnnssien en satisfving by out the incurn’ng 01‘“ that. expenses enimissian 3y. 5L” Pav Commission, if of the opinion that loo‘i ave already been retired and also in .se of DA insptte the tact that DA has As far as the last cl‘ :_ WWEMW eWm leave which was e and half pay s XI-HC~22 m ' Wm H1 200 mam mm mm WWW A mwffww 9,— %3I%nem%w F l empioyees were offered culmjled‘ by Circular retrospective effect. Again beneflt with retrospective In the t‘u‘st mace the peritio pursuance of the scheme for reduction of the workmen curtailment of the benefit of retrospective eiTect Vide Cimuiar the mspondem Company Annexune P—2. Therefore. in e‘ntitiec1 to curtail the benefi". 27.8.2000, however, that can the retirement has been resyondents are (lheoted to Leave 8n Half Pay Leave {c 2?.8.2000 as per the preVailiig M1 Shashidharan, apart from these ctaims in more license fee of the q employees by the respmlde outsiders to whom the com He further submits that incurred expenses 1‘11 respect be recovered from the empl been recovered from the due voluntary retirement scheme has been Annexure P-4 clated 28.8.2000 with ilu my opinion: cm‘raihucnt 0f this eftkctcmmdt be. considered to be valid. ‘ers took the voluntarv retirement in immduceri by the mspondexit' 'company force and on the other hand earned leave anti half Dav leave with Annexure P-2 dated 28.8.2000 by 1'; coun‘aw to the spirit of circular my opinion the respondents are not of earneci leave 35 half pay leave u‘ll be made e§ective in the cases when: eilkcted wef. 28.5.2000. Accordingly, giV‘e henem‘ of encashmem of Earned the petitioner as per rules up to scheme up to that date. counsel for the {zetirioners submits that some cases msponclents are charging arters. which are provided to the t No.2 & 3 in comparison to the any has also provided the quarters. some of the case some employees of special diseases. which were not to yees concerned, hut the same have pavable to the em lovees. (ms, XI-HC-22 Wm C u...” u” . nun“.n..u.u..u...u. WWW 'WWEWW “lch ' ami§mm As far as these poinw are concgrncd. the. petitioners are at liberty to avail the separate remedy as admissible under the law. In the result. far the foyegoing reasene, the respondents are directed to make. the paymente to the. petitioners in light of the aforesaid directions given by the Court 3% early as possible but not later than six monthe from today, as most of the petitioners took their refirement 5 to 6 years back and they are waiting for their retiral dues. Wn't Petitions stand dis nosed 0t 1n te ms 0t the above order. Certified copv as per m es. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge {I (@éfhm s a is