1 2025:CGHC:20102 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3055 of 2025 1 - Ganpati Jha (Dead) Through Lrs. Sanjeev Kumar Jha S/o Late Uma Kant Jha Personal No. 91824 1.1 - (A). Sanjeev Kumar Jha S/o Late Ganpati Jha Aged About 51 Years R/o Quarter No. 1 L, Road -88, Ward 46, Sector - 06, Civic Centre Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - (B). Anup Kumar Jha S/o Late Ganpti Jha Aged About 41 Years R/o Quarter No. 1 L, Road -88, Ward 46, Sector - 06, Civic Centre Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Through Chairman- Cum - Managing Director, P-34/ A, Garihat Road, (South) Kolkota (W.B.). 2 - Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Through General Manager New Group Head (Project), Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.05.03 17:26:21 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri N. Naha Roy, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 02.05.2025 1. The facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioners took voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by respondents No.1 & 2 vide circulars dated 10.11.1988 and 18/19.11.1993, which were extended from time to time up to the year 2000. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners claimed arrears of the 5th pay commission from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1997 along with other benefits associated with the posts that they were carrying. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 2 of 2001 and other connected matters, passed an order on 28.4.2005 directing the respondent authorities to extend the benefits of the 5th pay Commission from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1997, along with permissible D.A., HRA, other allowances, medical allowances, travelling allowances and earned leave. The order passed by the writ court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said case was disposed of reserving liberty in favour of respondents No.1 & 2 remitting the matter back to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide the matter. The Division Bench vide order dated 3.2.2015 dismissed the writ appeals filed by the respondents. Respondents No.1 & 2 made payment of admissible arrears of salary to the petitioners. Against the order passed by the 3 Division Bench, an SLP was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.8.2015. 2. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would submit that the admissible dearness allowance was not paid to the petitioners as per the circulars issued by the Central Government from time to time, and therefore, the ex gratia, gratuity, earned leave, medical leave, HRA, travelling allowance, special ex gratia and medical allowance could not be calculated properly. They would further submit that a direction may be issued to respondents No.1 & 2 to revisit and recalculate the retiral dues payable to the petitioners and make the payment accordingly. 3. On the other hand, Shri N. Naha Roy, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 would submit that respondents No.1 & 2 have already made payment of all pending dues and the same has been properly explained in the return according to the order passed in W.P. No.2 of 2001. He would further submit that the petitioners have already been paid revised wages and arrears from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1997, arrears of dearness allowances, arrears of earned leave, arrears of additional leave, payment of half-pay leave,arrears of house rent allowance, reimbursement of differential amount on account of medical bills and the payment towards travelling allowance strictly in accordance with the applicable rates. He would also submit that the petitioners are not entitled to get a single penny from respondents No.1 & 2, as the order passed in W.P. No.2 of 2001 and afÏrmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench has been complied with in its letter and spirit. 4 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 have categorically stated that they have made payment of admissible dues to the petitioners in accordance with the directions issued in W.P. No. 2 of 2001. The figures have been provided in the return filed by respondents No.1 & 2. The petitioners have claimed ex gratia and gratuity at the enhanced rate of dearness allowance. The claim of the petitioners is that though the order passed in W.P. No.2 of 2001 has been complied with but the retiral dues to the retired employees and the voluntary retired employees have not been made according to the enhanced rates of D.A. 6. Taking into consideration the dispute involved in these petitions, all these petitions are hereby disposed of with the following directions:- (1) Respondents No.1 & 2 shall constitute a Joint Committee of five responsible ofÏcers to consider the claim of the petitioners within a period of 30 days from today; (2) The petitioners are permitted to make representations raising grievances before the Committee along with the relevant documents; (3) The Committee shall consider the claim of petitioners; (4) The Committee shall scrutinize the records while deciding the representations made by the petitioners; (5) The entire exercise shall be completed by the Committee so constituted within a period of 120 days from today; 5 (6) The Committee shall provide the proper opportunity of hearing to the interested parties including the petitioners and the concerned department; (7) The outcome shall be communicated to the petitioners at their given address. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib