The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S). No. 5418 of 2012 …. 1.Lalji Prasad Sinha son of Late Jagatpal Narain, resident of Indrapuri, Road No. 1, Post Office- Sukhdeonagar, Police Station: Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. Kalpan Kumar Banerjee son of Late Krishna Kamal Banerjee, resident of 17, Purulia Road, Opposite Sahara India Officer, Post Office: G.P.O, PS: Lower Bazar, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. Anil Kumar Ghosh son of Late Ashutosh Ghosh, resident of 616, Mahamayatala Road, Busundhara Apartment, Flat No. E-401, Block-E, Kolkata-700084, PO- Garia, PS- Sonarpur, Distrct: South 24 Parghanas, West Bengal 4. Satyendra Nath Sinha son of Late Rajendra Prasad, resident of A 304 Progressive Celebrity, Plot No. 71, Sector 15, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400614, Maharasta. 5.Salil Kanta Gupta son of late Barid Kanta Gupta, resident of A 1/3, Diamond Park, Joka, Kolkata-700104, PO- Joka, PS- Thakurpukur, District- South 24 Parganas, West Bengal. 6. Mahendra Kumar Sinha son of Late Hari Nandan Prasad, resident of House No. 58, Road No. 5, Hawai Nagar, PO- Hatia, PS- Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ……Petitioners 1 Versus 1.The Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, PO- Dhurwa, PS- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Union of India through the Secretary, Heavy Industries, Government of India, New Delhi 3. The Director (Personnel), Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., PO and PS- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand …Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.No.1 & 3 : Mr. Sushant Kumar, A.C. to Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate For the Resp.No.2 : None …… JUDGMENT C.A.V on 27.06.2024 Pronounced on 18.12.2024 This Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for grant of following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6th April, 2012, whereby and whereunder, the relief sought for by the petitioners for getting arrears of difference of salary on account of revision in the pay scale, in pursuance of 2 Circular No. 2 of 2008 dated 14.10.2008, has been rejected. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release the entire arrears of difference of salary, consequent upon revision in the pay scale with effect from 01.01.1997 till their dates of superannuation, along with all the consequential benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund etc, along with interest and leave travel assistance for each block year since 1994 to 2002 to each of the petitioners. (iii) For issuance of such other appropriate writ, order or direction, as which may deem fit and proper. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Legal Reasoning
counsel for the Respondent nos. 1 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order dated 06.04.2012 (Annexure-5) is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioners had worked in the Respondent Corporation for more than thirty (30) years and they have superannuated from their services with effect from 31.05.2001, 29.06.2002, 31.05.2001, 28.02.2001 and 31.08.2002 respectively. It is submitted that vide Circular dated 14.10.2008 (i.e. Annexure-2), the Management of H.E.C had announced the revised salary of grades as on 01.01.1997 with a direction that the actual payment in the revised scale of pay would commence from 18.09.2008 but it has not been stated in the said Circular No. 02/2008 that financial benefits will be implemented with effect from 18.09.2008. It is submitted that while Respondent Corporation was having financial crunch then the matter was referred before 3 the BIFR. However, in the meantime, the Company had made profit of Rs. 2.86 Crores, Rs. 4.17 Crores and Rs. 18.37 Crores for the year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively and also made provisional profit of Rs. 44.27 Crores in the year 2009-10. Thus, after issuance of circular, it is evident that company had incurred due profit, thereafter, the petitioner had filed representation in the year 2010 to grant financial benefits to the petitioners with effect from 01.01.1997 (Annexure-3) but no action was taken. Thereafter, vide letter dated 07.04.2012, the H.E.C Corporation had rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that financial benefits has to be given with effect from 18.09.2008 and the same is liable to be set aside as the order dated 06.04.2012 (i.e. Annexure-5) is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that according to the documents enclosed as Annxure-7, it is evident that the benefit of Revision has been granted to the Employees as an interim measure, prior to the year 2008. These employees got the benefit of interim relief, vide different letters and circulars in the year 2006, while they were in services, but they retired prior to the year 2008. Therefore, it is clear that the employees who had retired prior to the year 2008 had got the benefits of pay revision in the interim measure, while they were in services in the year 2006. It is further submitted that provisions of circular dated 14.10.2008, by which pay revision was enhanced, as on 01.01.1997, the payment has to be made with effect from 18.09.2008. The cut-off date for making payment was prescribed as to be 18.09.2008. This cut-off date has been 4 violated in case of some of the employees, who got the benefit on 25.05.2006 and 02.05.2007 respectively. It has been stated that the classification of the hierarchy of the employees in the Department of the respondents, runs from E-1 gradation to E-9 gradation. The gradation category has been put in hierarchy as per the rules of the HEC. The petitioners were appointed and have served with the respondents and in the course of employment, they were promoted in hierarchy. The petitioner no. 1 namely L.P Sinha, retired from the post of Assistant Manager; Petitioner no. 2 namely Sri. K.K Banerjee, retired from the post of Manager Finance; Petitioner no. 3 namely Sri. A.K Ghosh, retired from the post of Senior DGM Finance; Petitioner no. 4 namely S. N Sinha retired from the post of S.D.G.M Finance; Petitioner no. 5 namely S.K Gupta retired from the post of Deputy Manager, Finance; Petitioner no. 6 namely M.K. Sinha, retired from the post of Deputy Manager, Finance. 5. It is submitted that the circular of the year 2008 clearly prescribed that the employees rendering their services from E-1 to E-8 grade will be getting their financial upgradation on the basis of entitlement in the year 1997. The petitioners have also served as employees of the HEC from E-1 to E-8 grade, but however, they have been distinguished and are not being paid the benefit. It is submitted that employees, who are going to get the benefit of upgradation and revision are similarly placed as that of the present petitioners, and have been serving as the petitioners in different grades from E-1 to E-8 and they are already getting the benefits, while the petitioners who are similarly situated and have performed same nature of services over the years until the date of retirement, i.e. after 1997, have been denied from getting any 5 benefits. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners is similar to that of E-1 to E-8 grade, who have been allowed to get the benefit of revision. The similarly situated employees cannot be discriminated and hence, this Writ Petition may be allowed. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgment:- (i) In the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association and Others versus State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 100 at Para- 15 to 18 and Para- 38 and 39. 7. It is further submitted that earlier petitioner no. 1 had filed W.P.(S) No. 710 of 2012 which was disposed of on 21.02.2012 with a direction to Respondent no. 1 (i.e. the CMD) to decide the
Decision
representation of the writ petitioners in accordance with law after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or to their representatives. It is submitted that while passing the order dated 06.04.2012 (i.e. Annexure-5), the Respondent no. 3 (i.e. the Director of HEC) had failed to consider the benefit of claim of the petitioner, hence, the impugned order dated 06.04.2012 (i.e. Annexure-5) passed by Respondent no.3 may be set aside and this writ petition may be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent- H.E.C has submitted that the order dated 06.04.2012 is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioners have retired long back between the period 1997 to 2002 respectively and thus, their claim is not maintainable. It is submitted that vide circular dated 14.10.2008 (i.e. Annexure-2), it was clearly decided by the authorities of H.E.C-Respondent no. 1 and 3 that the financial benefits will be allowed to the employees 6 of H.E.C with effect from 18.09.2008 and not from 01.01.1997 and thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 06.04.2012. It is submitted that H.E.C was suffering from huge loss and it was declared ‘Sick Industry’ and the financial condition of the H.E.C was not good. It is submitted that the 1997 scales of pay were implemented with effect from 18th September 2008 for the employees of the Respondent Company and does not anyway mean that any PSU which implements these scales of pay will have to implement them with effect from 1st January 1997. It is submitted that implementation rules for one set of pay scales need not be the same as the implementation of another set of pay scales viz the rules under which 1992 pay scales were implemented need not be the same for implementation of 1997 pay scales. 9. It is further submitted that the interim relief of Rs. 1000/- per month which was being paid to the regular employees on the rolls of the Corporation as on 01.05.2006 as per office Order No. 02/2006 dated 25.05.2006 was being paid pending wage revision which was subject to further orders. The interim relief has since been merged with the wage revision of 1997 with effect from 18.09.2008 vide Letter No. 5-12/2005- PE.V dated 18.09.2008 of the Ministry of Heavy Industry, Government of India read with Clause 19.0 of vide Circular No. 02/2008 dated 14.10.2008. The productivity Linked Reward Scheme issued vide letter dated 02.05.2007 was introduced with a view to achieve the target of Net Sales of Rs. 500 Crores during the financial year 2007-08 and the said scheme was effective till the wage revision of 01.01.1997. Though, the amount of reward scheme was to be adjusted from the arrears of the wage revision 7 but in view of wage revision of 1997 being made effective from 18.09.2008 instead of 01.01.1997, the non-adjustment of the reward amount cannot be construed that pay revision benefits have been paid during the intervening period with effect from 01.01.1997 to 18.09.2008 to those employees who were on the roll of the Corporation on 01.05.2006. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 has also enclosed the photocopy of the Certified Standing Order of Respondent Company. It is further submitted that as per DPE O.M dated 25.06.1999, the benefit of pay revision was also allowed in respect of CPSES which did not make profit during the last three years provided they have resources to met additional expenditure. The Company although, made moderate profit from the years 2006-07 to 2012-13, it did not had sufficient resources to meet the financial burden for payment of arrears on account of 1997 Wage Revision. It is submitted that the case of H.E.C should not be seen in isolation. There are a large number of sick/loss making CPSES where pay revision have been granted by the Government in relaxation of DPE guidelines to mitigate their hardship and motivate their employees to perform better and revive the companies. However, the revisions have been granted with prospective effect only. There are a large number of Court cases pending in various High Courts across the country demanding similar reliefs. Considering the case of HEC Limited in isolation for implementation will have wide ranging financial implications and wide ramifications across the country. It will go against the stand of the Government in all such Court cases pending in various Courts and hence, there is no merit in this Writ Petitioner 8 and the same may be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel for the Respondent HEC has placed reliance upon the following judgment:- (i) In the case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited versus Arvind Kumar Dixit and Another reported in 2015 (2) SCC 535 at Para- 11 and Para-19. 12. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and from going through the records, it is evident that all the writ petitioners were employees of HEC and they have superannuated from HEC with effect from 31.05.2001, 29.06.2002, 31.05.2001, 28.02.2001 and 31.08.2002 respectively. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners had retired after completing their tenure. 13. The petitioners have also mentioned the grade of the petitioners as follows:- Sl.No. Petitioner’s Name Retired from the Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 post Lalji Prasad Sinha Assistant Kalpan Kumar Manager Finance E-2 E-4 Banerjee Anil Kumar Ghosh Senior DGM E-6 Finance Satyendra Nath S.D.G.M, Finance E-3 Sinha Salil Kanta Gupta Deputy Manager E-3 Finance Mahendra Kumar Deputy Manager E-3 Sinha Finance 9 14. It is further evident from the submission of both the parties that some of the employees were granted interim protection prior to the year 2008 and those employee who got the benefit of interim relief vide different letters and circulars in the year 2006 while they were in service but they had retired prior to the year 2008. Thus, it is clear that the employees who were in services till the year 2006 had been given the benefit of circular dated 14.10.2008 vide Circular No. 02/2008. 15. It is further evident that the circular order was issued in the year 2008 but the company had started making profit from the financial year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively to the extent of Rs. 2.86 Crores, Rs. 4.17 Crores, Rs. 18.37 Crores and Rs. 44.27 Crores respectively. 16. It appears that by filing another counter affidavit dated 25.09.2021, it has been pointed out by the Respondent H.E.C that the then Director (Personnel) of H.E.C Ltd., had heard the petitioners on 03.04.2012 and in his decision dated 06.04.2012 had rejected the claim of the petitioners. It is evident that CMD had authorized Director of Personnel to decide the claim of the petitioners and then Director (Personnel) had heard the petitioners on 03.04.2012 and by his decision dated 06.04.2012 (i.e. Annexure-5) had rejected the claim of the petitioners. It further appears that the petitioners had mentioned about the Circular dated 14.10.2008 and in the point no. 2.0 of the said circular, it is mentioned that the actual payment in the revised scale of pay would commence from 18.09.2008 and therefore, no arrear or fixation prior to this date is admissible. It reveals that the Company vide its communication dated 10 31.03.2011 had approached the department for considering sanction of the special grant amount to Rs. 160 Crore (excluding CPF) being the amount of arrears for payment to retired as well as serving employees towards 1997 pay revision for the period 01.01.1997 to 17.09.2008. The said communication from the company was duly considered by the Department in the background of CCEA (Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs) decision dated 10.09.2008. In the said Cabinet decision, the approval was given for the revision of wages only with the prospective effect. In light of this, the request of the company was not agreed to. 17. The report of the Committee at Para 37, 38 and 39 read as follows:- “Para:37 The committee note from the submissions made by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises (Department of Heavy Industries) that on the persistent requests of the representatives of the retired employees and the Trade Union(s) of the Company for payment of the 1997 Wage Revision arrears from the period 1 January 1997 till 17 September 2008, thereby, involving Rs. 160 crores and around 7356 persons, the case was taken up with the Department of Heavy Industry by the management of HEC Limited. However, the proposal was not approved by the Department. Para:-38 Subsequently, a proposal was put up to the Board of Directors of HEC Limited in its meeting held on 25th June 2013 for sending a request to Department of Heavy Industry for placing the matter before Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) for consideration. However, the proposal was not approved 11 by the Board seemingly on the grounds that a demand like this, if agreed to, would have a spiral effect on a large number of Public Sector Undertakings. Para:-39 The committee do not agree with the averments made by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises (Department of Heavy Industry) that the proposal for special grant of Rs. 160 crores for payment of arrears for the period from 1st January 1997 to 17th September 2008 was not placed before the CCEA by the Board of Directors of HEC Limited, despite the fact that earlier on three occasions i.e. 24th November 2011, 31st March 2011 and 30th July 2012, the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) of the HEC Limited had requested to the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises (Department of Heavy Industry) for Special Grant of Rs. 160 crore. The Committee is astonished to observe that the decision for not placing the matter before the CCEA on the grounds that it would have a spiral effect on large number of PSUs, it taken at the Board level meeting of a lone company and, therefore, could not be regarded as a policy decision. The Committee, therefore, strongly urge upon the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises (Department of Heavy Industry) to consider the earlier requests made by the former CMDs and take immediate steps to get the same approved by the Board of Directors, HEC Limited and, thereafter, be placed before the CCEA for release of special grant of Rs. 160 crore to the HEC Limited so that Statutory Dues/Arrears for the period 1st January 1997 till 17th September 2008 may be paid to the retired employees of the Company. 12 The committee would like to be apprised of the action taken in this regard, within three months of presentation of this Report to the House”. 18. It is clearly evident that the employees who were in their services till the year 18.09.2008 have been given the benefits of pay Revision whereas, some of the employees who had retired before 01.01.1997 to 18.09.2008 have not been given the reliefs of Revision of pay scales. By the said circular dated 14.10.2008 (i.e. Annexure-2), this was violated in case of some of the employees namely Jaichand Bose (Junior Engineer), Pulilal Pal (Assistant Manger) and Ranen Addya (Senior Manager) who have been given the benefit vide letter dated 25.05.2006 (Annexure-7) and vide letter dated 02.05.2007 (Annexure-7/1) respectively in violation of cut-off date which was stated to be fixed on 18.09.2008. 19. It is further evident that circular dated 14.10.2008 (i.e. Annexure-2) clearly prescribes that the employees, who have rendered their services from E-1 Grade to E-8 Grade, will be getting their financial upgradation on the basis of their respective entitlements in the year 1997 but revised scale of pay would commence from 18th September 2008 (i.e. 18.09.2008). 20. However, from the supplementary affidavit dated 15.01.2019 filed on behalf of the petitioners that issue of pay revision with retrospective effect taken up by the Parliamentary Committee and a report was prepared by the duly constituted committee and the said committee recommended that the funds for payment of arrears in relation to the present petitioners can be raised by returning 675.43 acres of land to the State of Jharkhand in order to raise Rs. 742.98 crores. It has been pointed out that the 13 corporation has received Rs. 400 Crores and money is being used for payment of dues of the employees. Therefore, the committee submitted its report before the Parliament on 15.12.2018 and the House has further referred the recommendation to the Department of Heavy Industry. Photocopy of the report and the recommendation of the committee have been enclosed as Annexure-8 (Series). 21. It is evident that however, the Respondent H.E.C and Union of India (i.e. Respondent no. 2) have not controverted the claim of the writ petitioners, although, copy of the same served upon them as early as in the year 2019 by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 22. It has been held in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh versus State of Bihar reported in 2018 (2) PLJR 929 at Para-8 which is as follows:- “Para-8. We are conscious of the law laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and various other legal issues that are involved in the matter, but the fact remains that in the cases of thirty employees who were dealt with under similar circumstances, not only similar, but under identical situations, twenty-eight employees, by virtue of the orders passed in the writ petitions and L.P.A's. have been reinstated and it is only, two persons who are litigating the matter The Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 as indicated hereinabove mandates that all similarly situated employees should be granted the benefit of covered matters and if orders of the Court have been implemented in case (of certain litigants, It should, be implemented in respect of all other identically situated persons If the State Litigation Policy is to be implemented, we have no hesitation in holding that the present respondents should also be dealt with in identical fashion ie respondent Surendra Prasad Mahto @ Surendra Pd Mahto in L.P.A. No. 1509 of 2009 and the appellant Amarish Kumar Singh in L.P.A. No. 1028 of 2007 in [identical- situation and once on 21.4.2011 a Division Bench of this Court in all other cases has granted benefit to the 14 employees, there is no reason to go into the legal questions involved in the matter and answer them when we find that in the cases of twenty eight employees the benefit has been granted to them by virtue of the orders passed by this Court” 23. It has been held in the case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited versus Arvind Kumar Dixit and Another reported in 2015 (2) SCC 535 at Para-11 and Para-19 as follows:- its stand on (Annexure P-13), clarified “Para-11:- From the above Letter dated 8-8-2006, it is clear that wage revision of the employees, effective only from 1-4- 2003, was to be implemented w.e.f. 1-4-2006. In this connection, when the clarification is sought by the appellant Corporation, the Government of India vide Letter dated 17-8- 2006 the recommendations of the Board for Reconstruction of Public Sector Enterprises (Brpse). Accordingly, Office Order dated 25-8-2006 was issued by the appellant Corporation allowing wage revision to those who were on employment roll on 1-4- 2003. The conjoint reading of the letters issued by the Government of India makes it amply clear that the wage revision was to be implemented with effect from 1-4-2006 allowing the employees who were superannuated/voluntarily retired with effect from 1-4-2003. As such, we find no difficulty in accepting the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that only those employees are entitled to the wage revision who were on roll as on 1-4-2003 as mentioned in the Office Order dated 25-8-2006 (Annexure P-14). Para-19:- In view of the above law laid down by this Court, we do not find that the cut-off date i.e. 1-4-2003 for granting wage revision, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is arbitrary nor do we find it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution”. 24. However, the above judgment is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case and in the present case, the Respondent nos. 1 and 3 has given benefit of pay revision to several employees namely Jaichand Bose (Junior Engineer), Pulilal Pal (Assistant Manger) and Ranen Addya 15 (Senior Manager). 25. It has been held in the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association and Others versus State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 100 at Para-15, 16, 17, 18 and Para-38 and 39 which are as follows:- “Para:-15:- Mr Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondents — the State Government, and MSFC, urged that the impugned judgment [Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. Ex-Employees Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21341] does not call for interference. It was submitted that MSFC is an autonomous Corporation established under the State Financial Corporation Act. It is not bound to follow the terms and conditions applicable to Maharashtra Government employees. In fact, it has to independently generate its income from its own resources to meet any additional burden or expenditure due to increased pay or increase in wages for its employees. It was submitted that under Section 39 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 it has to seek guidance and directives of the State Government in policy matters. Para-16:- It was submitted that MSFC was not bound by the decision of the State to implement the decisions of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions for its employees. In fact, the State never directed the Corporation to implement such Pay Commission recommendations. It only approved a proposal to extend the benefit of Fifth Pay Commission recommendations to the Corporation's employees in terms of its Letter dated 23-9-2010. Before that, the State refused to grant approval to the resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 24-7-1996. Para-17:- It was further argued that the employees of the Corporation cannot claim, as a matter of right, any benefit of pay revision without MSFC's ability to bear the burden of such pay increase. The learned counsel highlighted that the Corporation was running in losses as a result of which there was no justification for granting the benefits in the terms claimed by the appellants. Para-18:- It was submitted that the fixation of cut-off date is a policy matter, especially in respect of revision of salaries, 16 in limit for employment limited retrospective allowances, and the other benefits to employees of a State Corporation. These depend on various considerations, including financial constraints and the number of employees involved. It was urged that the paying capacity of an employer is an important and valid consideration of such an exercise. Granting any benefit to employees normally involves fixing of cut-off date. If these factors are kept in mind, devising a the employees who are on the rolls of the Corporation lessens the impact of the financial burden. Thus, the fixation of cut- off date in the present case was not arbitrary. Para-38:- In the present case, too, there is no denial that the employees who retired prior to 29-3-2010 discharged the same duties as in the case of those who did thereafter. The quality and content of responsibilities assigned to them were the same. The respondents' decision not to grant arrears prior to 1-1-2006 cannot be found fault with; however, not to grant any revision to those who were not in service when the order implementing the pay revision was issued and confining it to discriminatory. is those, The rationale that granting such pay revision only to existing employees would be to enthuse them to recover NPA amounts payable to MSFC has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the pay revision, which is to benefit employees and protect them from the rise in the cost of living. Para-39:- In the present case, therefore, applying the ratio in the above decisions, it is clear that there is no distinction between those who retired (or died in service) before 29-3- 2010 and those who continued in service — and were given the pay revision. Those who worked during the period 1-1- 2006 to 29-3-2010 and those who continued thereafter, fell in the same class, and a further distinction could not be made. The fact that MSFC did not recover any interim relief, or ad hoc amount disbursed between 18-9-1996 to 31-12-2005 (towards recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission), also reaffirms that these ex-employees belonged to the same class as those that received the benefit of the pay revisions. The exclusion of the retired employees, who retired between 1-1- 2006 and 29-3-2010 on achieving their date of superannuation, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”. clearly 17 26. The above judgment fully applies in the case of the writ petitioners as in the above case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at Para-39 that there is no distfinction between those who retired (or died in service) before 29.03.2010 and those who continued in service and were given the pay revision. Those who worked during the period 01.01.2006 to 29.03.2010 and those who continued thereafter, fell in the same class, and a further distinction could not be made. 27. In the above case also vide Circular No. 02/2008 dated 14.10.2008, the revised scale of pay were given with effect from 01.01.1997, however, the actual payment was made effective from 18.09.2008. 28. It has been held in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another versus Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1712 at Para-60 which is as follows:- “Para-60. We, therefore, allow this appeal in part and issue the following directions and conclusions by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, for the removal of discrepancy in the pay scales prescribed for the posts of SDI/ABSA and DBSA: i. The appeal is allowed in part. The Impugned Judgment of the Division Bench in its entirety and that of the Single Judge of the High Court in part, are set aside. ii. The 2011 Order is approved in its entirety. iii. The private Respondents and their colleagues in the same cadre (before and after the redesignation of their posts) are held entitled to the pay scale, strictly in accordance with the 2011 Order. The Respondents and other members of their cadre and all members of the Caveator-organization shall be entitled to the pay scale granted by the said Government Order, notionally from 01.01.2006 and actually from 01.12.2008. iv. However, any payment made to the Respondents more than what they are entitled to with effect from 01.12.2008, towards pay or retiral benefits shall not be recovered from 18 them. The judgment of the Single Judge dated 02.02.2018, which set aside such recovery, is accordingly affirmed. v. The arrears of pay or pension, if not already paid, shall be paid to the Respondents or their colleagues in the same cadres within a period of four months along with interest @ 7% per annum. vi. Those who have retired from service, their pension and other retiral benefits shall be re-fixed accordingly, along with arrears with effect from 01.12.2008, to be paid within four months along with interest @ 7% per annum. vii. The 2011 Order is meant only for the officials belonging to the State's Education Department, namely the Respondents and their colleagues of the same cadre. Employees of other Government Departments shall not be entitled to take benefit thereof as a matter of right. The benefits flowing from this order are also restricted to the employees like Respondents of the State Education Department and only to those who fall in the category of the posts that were the subject matter of consideration before the Rizvi Committee. viii. This order shall not be taken as a precedent by employees of other departments to claim revised or higher pay scales. 29. It is further evident that the impugned order dated 06.04.2012 (i.e. Annexure-5) passed by the Respondent no. 3 i.e. Director (Personnel) is also illegal in view of the fact that the Co- ordinate Bench (Justice D. N Patel, as then His Lordship was) of this Court while disposing of W.P.(S). No. 710 of 2012 dated 21.02.2012 had directed the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (in short CMD) i.e. the Respondent no. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioners, however, the CMD (i.e. Respondent no.1) instead of deciding the case of the petitioners in the light of direction of this Court, had directed and authorized the Director (Personnel) i.e. Respondent no. 3 to decide the claim of the petitioners which is also per se illegal. 19 The CMD-Respondent no. 1 ought to have decided the claims of the petitioners in the light of direction given by the High Court of Jharkhand on 21.02.2012 in W.P.(S). No. 710 of 2012 and this amounts to flouting the direction of Court and is contemptuous in nature and the CMD ought to have respected the direction/order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice D.N Patel, as then His Lordship was) of this Court in said W.P.(S). No. 710 of 2012. 30. It further transpires from Annexure-7 which is Office Order No. 02/2006 dated 25.05.2006 issued by Chief of Admn. & Personnel of H.E.C that the H.E.C authorities had decided that an interim relief @ Rupees One Thousand per month will be paid to all regular employees on the roll of the Corporation as on 01.05.2006, pending wage revision and subject to further orders. 31. The above order dated 25.05.2006 (Annexure-7) was linked with Productivity Reward Scheme dated 02.05.2007 issued by Senior Deputy General Manager, In-charge (Personnel and Administration) , H.E.C and it was incorporated that the amount of reward will be adjusted in the arrears of pay revision and the above scheme will be effective with effect from 01.01.1997. 32. Therefore, it is evident that this is clear discrimination on the part of H.E.C authorities because on the one hand, they had given benefit of interim reliefs to those employees who were in service vide different letters and circulars in the year 2006 who had retired prior to 2008 whereas the petitioners have been discriminated by the H.E.C authorities. The employees who had retired prior to 2008 have also got the benefits of Pay Revision as the interim measure while they were in service in the year 2006. 33. It further transpires that some of the employees 20 namely Jaichand Bose (Junior Engineer), Pulilal Pal (Assistant Manger) and Ranen Addya (Senior Manager) have been granted the benefit of pay revision in pay scale and which has been asserted by the writ petitioners in paragraph-8 of the affidavit dated 20.03.2023. 34. Therefore, it is evident that the H.E.C authorities have created two class of employees for giving the benefit, as on the one hand, the petitioners who were retired prior to 2001 have been discarded from grant of benefit whereas, the employees who were in service till the year 2006 and 2007 as appears from the Annexure-7 and Annexure-7/1 respectively, have been given the benefit of Pay Revision by the H.E.C authorities by creating another class. 35. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners who have retired from E-1 to E-8 grades are similarly situated with the persons who have retired in the year 2006 and 2007 respectively but on the one hand, the petitioners have been denied the benefit of pay revision whereas, the Respondents had allowed the benefit of pay revision by way of interim measure to those persons who had been working in the year 2006 and 2007 respectively before H.E.C authorities. 36. Thus, it is evident that there was discrimination in the two sets of similar employees by the H.E.C authorities. 37. It is well settled that there employees can claim parity in pay scale after some of the employees have been granted benefits by the said H.E.C. 38. It is well settled from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensions Welfare Association versus State of Himachal Pradesh 21 and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1031 and in the case of Om Prakash Banerjee versus State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online 771 that if the persons similarly situated have been granted relief then the same has to be granted to the similarly situated persons. 39. It has been held in the case of Om Prakash Banerjee versus State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 771 at Para-29 which is as follows:- “Para-29. The principles of natural justice, too, demand that the Appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the regularisation of services when his similarly placed fellow employees have been granted the said benefit”. 40. Thus, the Respondents have done complete discrimination with the petitioners who have retired in the year 1997 till the year 2001 and the action of the respondents falls in complete violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 41. It is further evident that there is no denial that the employees who retired prior to 18.09.2008 and who discharged the same duties as in the case of those who did thereafter. The quality and content of responsibilities assigned to them were the same. The Respondents’ decision not to grant arrears prior to 18.09.2008 cannot be found proper. However, by not granting Revision to those who were not in service when the order implementing the pay Revision was issued and confining it to those, in employment is clearly discriminatory. 42. Thus, there can be no distinction between those employees who retired before 18.09.2008 and those who continued in service and were given the benefits of pay revision. 22 43. This Court is of the view that those employees who worked during the period 01.01.1997 to 18.09.2008 and those who continued thereafter, are in the same class, and a further distinction could not be made. The exclusion of the retired employees, who retired between 31.05.2001 to 31.08.2002 or before 01.01.1997 to 17.09.2008 on achieving their date of superannuation will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 44. So far as the judgment reported in 2015 (2) SCC 535 is concerned, the same relates to grant of benefit from cut off date 0.04.2003 for granting wage revision. However, later on in its subsequent judgment reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 100, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the said proposition of law that no distinction can be made between the employees who served or retired before 29.03.2010 and those who worked during the period 01.01.2006 to 29.03.2010. Thus, the same will be applicable in this case for the petitioners who had retired between 01.01.1997 to 31.08.2002. 45. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Patna High Court and the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi and also on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of arrears of difference of salary along with all consequential benefits like Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Provident Fund etc on account of revision in their respective pay scale for the period in question. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioners will be entitled to benefit of pay revision also in the light of Circular dated 14.10.2008 vide Circular No. 02/2008 so far as it relates to 23 the writ petitioners. 46. Thus, this Writ Petition is allowed with the observation mentioned above and the order dated 06.04.2012 (Annexure-5) passed by the Director (Personnel) is hereby quashed and the petitioners were also be entitled to difference of arrears of salary and along with all the consequential benefits like Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Provident Fund etc on account of revision in the pay scale, pursuant to Circular No. 2 of 2008 dated 14.10.2008 and the Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh in the light of Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Avinash/ N.A.F.R (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 24