APHC01O299532024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SSS H THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15226 OF 2024 BETWEEN; 1. Padathula Veerababu, S/o P Appalaswamay Hindu, Male, aged about 74 years, Retired as DGM with Emp.No.l02176, R/o: HIG-1-169, VUDA Phase-7, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam-530046. 2. H.A. Vasanatha, W/o T.K. Naga Bhushana, Hindu, Female, aged about 75 years. Retired as DGM (D & E) with Emp.No. 10447 R/o; D.No. 30, Stage, Industrial Suburb, Visweswara Nagar, Mysuru - 570008. . 3.Mothali Venkata Rama Sarma, S/o MS. Rama Sastri Hindu, Male, aged about 78 Years, Retired as ED (CA & S) with Emp.No. 100588, R/o; Block 10, Flat No.908, My Home Avatar, Narsingi, Hyderabad, 500089. 4. Palla Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o P Rama Chandra Rao Hindu, Female, aged about 75 years. Retired as Manager with Emp.No. 100126, R/o; D.No; 14-11-7/a, Ramajigipeta, Maharani Post, Visalchapatnam-530002.. 5. Mangipudi Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Hanumatha Rao, Hindu, Male, aged about 73 years. Retired as General Manager with Emp.No. 101498, R/o; Flat No. 114, Sai Homes Apartment, Behind Dharani Apartments, Ramakrishna Nagar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam-530027. 6. T Samba Siva Rao, S/o T Nagendrudu, Hindu, Male, aged about 75 years. Retired as DGM with Emp.No. 112477, R/o; E-405, Jeevan Visakha Apartments, MMTC Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, 530022. . 7. Swapan Ghosh Dastidar, S/o DMG Dastidar, Hindu, Male, aged about 76 years. Retired DGM with Emp.No. 102413, ? ? 5 ? 5 5 5 ? f Ryo:Mohan Tower, 288 - Chaulpatti Road, Beleghata, Kolkata - 700010. 8. P.V.S. Prasada Rao, S/o PVS Murthy, Hindu, Male, aged about 78 years. Retired as DGM with Emp.No.l02413, R/o:E. 102, My Home Booja, Near Biodiversity Park, Rayadurgam, Hyderabad - 500081. 9. Addala Durga Rao, S/o A Satyanarayana,, Hindu, Male, aged about 77 years, Retired Manager with Emp.No. 100221, R/o: D.No.2-55/10, Sri Balaji Estates, Near Rice Factory, Batnavilli, Amalapuram, 533222. lO.Sigam Setty Sitaramaiah, S/o SSV Narasayya, Hindu, Male, aged about 71 years. Retired GM with Emp.No. 102688, R/o.JADE 1212, My Home Jewel, Madinaguda, Hyderabad - 500049. 1 l.Maruvada Padmaja, W/o MK Sarma, Hindu, Male, aged about 73 years. Retired Dy. Manager with Emp.No. 101536, R/o:Flat No.403, Lotus Ajantha, Near Meridian School, 6“’ Phase, KPHB, Hyderabad - 500072. 12. Ajoy Kumar Banerjee, S/o Bisvswar Banerj Hindu, Male, aged about 78 Years, Retired ED(Projects) with Emp.No. 100487, R/o: D.No.9-14-11/13, Flat No.D-3, BR Princeton Apartment, VIP Road, CBM Compound Visakhapatnam - 530003. B.Malay Kumar Bandyopadhyaya, S/o MK Banerj Hindu, Female, aged about 78years, Retired as GM, with Emp.No. 101505, R/o.D.No.50-17-27/13, Bhava Enclave-2, Rajendra Nagar, Near PRISM College, Visakhapatnam - 530016. 14.Dilip Kumar Das, S/o Nibaran Chandra Das Hindu, Female, aged about 78 Years, Retired General Manager with Emp.No. 102259, ■ R/o: Block-D, Flat G-5, Sivaji Nagar, Kurmannapalem, Visakpatnam 53004 15. Kodukula Venkata Sai Vijayasan, S/o K.V. Ramana Murthy, Hindu, Male, aged about 71 Years, Retired DGM with Emp.No. 105197, R/o B-203, KSR Green Vally Apartments, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam - 530018. ee ? ? ee. 16. K.V.S. Rama Mohan Rao, S/o Kompella Chinna Venkatachalem Hindu, Female, aged about 72 Years, Retired Asst.GM, with Emp.No. 101365, R/o; D.No.23-141, Plot No. 141, Sri Surya Tulasi Nagar, P.M.Palem, Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam r 530041. PETITIONERS. AND 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries 8l Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises Rept. its Director, Public Enterprises Bhavan, Block No. 14, CGO Complex Lodi Road, New Dehi - 110003. 2. Government of India, Ministry of Steel, Rept. by its Under Secretary (VSP) Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi. 3. RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITTED (RINL) Rept. By its Chairman & Managing Director, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (VSP), Visakhapatnam. 4. The Director (Personnel), RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITTED, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (VSP), Visakhapatnam. RESPONENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or appropriate writ to 1. declare the action of the Respondents in non-payment of PRP (Performance Related Pay) to the Petitioners during the financial years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 is illegal and arbitrary. 2. declare the action of the respondents more specifically Respondents No.3 and 4 in not paying the employer contribution to RINL pension (defined contribution) scheme is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust. 3. declare that the HR Policy Circular 15/20 dated-31-07-2020 which not retrospective is not applicable in so far as the petitioners who were retired from their services from 2007 to November 2013. 4. declare that, the Respondents liable to pay employer contribution to RIN Pension (Defined Contribution) along with interest without affecting any adjustment /set of leave encashment are availed by the Petitioners at the time of retirement, 5. declare that the Respondents liable to pay PRP amounts without affecting any recovery of the leave encashment availed by the Petitioners at the time of their retirement as per the office order dated 30-12-2013. 6. declare that the payments made towards leave encashment to the Petitioners prior to December, 2013 are proper and within the approved rules as on the date 7. direct the Respondents to release the payment of PRP (Performance Related Pay) for the years 2009-10 to 2013-14 eligibility to the Petitioners with interest and costs without per reference to the recovery of the encashment of the leaves paid to the employees at the time of their retirement 8. direct the Respondents to pay the employer contribution to RINL Pension (Differed Contribution) Scheme without reference to HR Policy Circular No. 15/2020 dated-31-07-,2020. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to direct the respondents to release the payment of Performance Related Pay (PRP) from the financial years 2009-10 to 2013-14 without reference to any recovery forthwith pending disposal of this writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners; SRI MURALI LINCOLN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: C V R RUDRA PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Counsel for the Respondents No.3, 4: SRI V SUBRAHMANYAM The Court made the following order; v' APHC010299532024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15226/2024 Between: 1. PADATHULA VEERABABU, S/0 P APPALASWAMAY HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. RETIRED AS DGM WITH EMP.NO.102176, R/O-HIG-1-169, VUDA PHASE-7, KURMANNAPALEM, 530046. VISAKHAPATNAM- 2. HA. VASANATHA,, W/0 T.K. NAGA BHUSHANA, HINDU, FEMALE, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. RETIRED AS DGM (D AND E) WITH EMP.NO. 10447 R/0- D.NO. 30, STAGE, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, VISWESWARA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570008. 3. MOTHALI VENKATA RAMA SARMA, S/0 MS. RAMA HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, SASTRI RETIRED AS ED (CA AND S) WITH EMP.NO.L00588, R/0- BLOCK 10, FLAT NO.908, MY HOME AVATAR, NARSINGI, HYDERABAD,500089. 4. PALLA VIJAYA LAKSHMI,, W/O P RAMA CHANDRA RAO HINDU, FEMALE, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. RETIRED AS MANAGER WITH EMP.NO. 100126, R/O- D.NO- 14- MAHARAN I POST, RAMAJIGIPETA, 11-7/A, VISAKH APATNAM-530002.. 2 5. MANGIPUDI VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/0 HANUMATHA RAO, HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. RETIRED AS GENERAL MANAGER WITH EMP.NO. 101498, R/0- FLAT N0.114, SAI HOMES APARTMENT, BEHIND DHARANI APARTMENTS, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530027. 6. T SAMBA SIVA RAO, S/0 T NAGENDRUDU, HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. RETIRED AS DGM WITH EMP.NO. 112477, R/0- E-405, JEEVAN VISAKHA APARTMENTS, MMTC COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM, 530022. 7. SWAPAN GHOSH DASTIDAR, S/0 DMG DASTIDAR, HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. RETIRED DGM WITH EMP.NO. 102413, R/O-MOHAN TOWER, 288 - CHAULPATTI ROAD, BELEGHATA, KOLKATA - 700010. 8. P.V.S. PRASADA RAO, S/0 PVS MURTHY, HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS. RETIRED AS DGM WITH EMP.NO.L02413, R/O-E.102, MY HOME BOOJA, NEAR BIODIVERSITY PARK, HYDERABAD-500081. RAYADURGAM, 9. ADDALA DURGA RAO, S/0 A SATYANARAYANA,, HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. RETIRED MANAGER WITH EMP.NO. 100221, R/O-D.NO.2-55/10, SRI BALAJI ESTATES, NEAR RICE FACTORY, BATNAVILLI,AMALAPURAM,533222 10.SIGAM SETTY SITARAMAIAH, S/0 SSV NARASAYYA, HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. RETIRED GM WITH EMP.NO. 102688, R/0.JADE 1212, MY HOME JEWEL, MADINAGUDA, HYDERABAD - 500049. 11.MARUVADA PADMAJA,, W/0 MK SARMA, MALE, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. MANAGER WITH EMP.NO. 101536, R/O-FLAT NO.403, HINDU, RETIRED DY. 3 f 6TH LOTUS AJANTHA, NEAR MERIDIAN SCHOOL PHASE, KPHB, HYDERABAD - 500072. 12 AJOY KUMAR BANERJEE, S/0 BISVSWAR BANERJEE RETIRED HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS ED(PROJECTS) WITH EMP.NO. 100487, R/0-D.N0.9- 14-11/13, FLAT NO.D-3, BR PRINCETON APARTMENT, VIP ROAD, CBM COMPOUND VISAKHAPATNAM - 530003. KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAYA,, S/O MK 13. MALAY BANERJEE, HINDU, FEMALE, AGED ABOUT 78YEARS RETIRED AS GM, WITH EMP.NO. 101505 BHAVA ENCLAVE-2, RAJENDRA NEAR PRISM COLLEGE, VISAKHAPATNAM - R/0- D.NO.50-17-27/13, NAGAR, 530016. 14.DILIP KUMAR DAS, S/O NIBARAN CHANDRA DAS HINDU, FEMALE, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RETIRED GENERAL MANAGER WITH EMP.NO. 102259, FLAT G-5, SIVAJI NAGAR, R/0- BLOCK-D, KURMANNAPALEM, VISAKPATNAM 530046.. 15.KODUKULA VENKATA SAI VIJAYASAN, S/O K.V. HINDU, MALE, AGED ABOUT 71 RAMANA MURTHY, YEARS RETIRED DGM WITH EMP.NO. 105197, R/0 B- APARTMENTS, 203, KSR GREEN VALLY MADHAVADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530018. 16.K.V.S. RAMA MOHAN RAO, S/O KOMPELLA CHINNA VENKATACHALEM, HINDU, FEMALE, AGED ABOUT 72 RETIRED ASST.GM, WITH EMP.NO.L01365, YEARS, R/0- D NO.23-141, PLOT NO.L41, SRI SURYA TULASI MADHURAVADA, P.M.PALEM NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530041. ...PETmONER(S) AND 4 1.THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES REPT. ITS DIRECTOR, PUBLIC ENTERPRISES BHAVAN, BLOCK NO. 14, CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DEHI - 110003. 2.GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF STEEL, REPT. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY (VSP), UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 3.RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITTED RINL, REPT. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT (VSP)! VISAKHAPATNAM. 4.THE DIRECTOR PERSONNEL, RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITTED, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT (VSP), VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or appropriate writ lo deelare the action of the Respondents in non-payment of PRP , (Performance Related Pay) to the Petitioners during the financial years 2009-10, 2010- 11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 is illegal and arbitrary. 1) 2) declare the action of the respondents more specifically Respondents No.3 and 4 in not paying the employer contribution to RINL pension (defined contribution) scheme is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust, declare that the HR Policy Circular 15/20 dated-31-07-2020 which not retrospective is not applicable in so far as the petitioners who were retired from their services from 2007 to November 2013. 4) declare that, the Respondents are liable to pay employer contribution to RIN Pension (Defined Contribution) along with interest without affecting any adjustment 5 /set of leave encashment availed by the Petitioners at the time of retirement, declare that the Respondents liable to pay PRP amounts without affecting any recovery of the leave encashment availed by the Petitioners at the time of their retirement as per the office order dated-30- 12-2013. 6) declare that the payments made towards leave encashment to the Petitioners prior to December, 2013 are proper and within the approved rules as on the date 7) direct the Respondents to release the payment of PRP (Performance Related Pay) for the years 2009-10 to 2013- 14 per eligibility to the Petitioners with interest and costs without reference to the recovery of the encashment of the leaves paid to the employees at the time of their retirement 8) direct the Respondents to pay the employer contribution to RINL Pension (Differed Contribution) Scheme without reference to HR Policy Circular No. 15/2020 dated-31-07-2020. Or 9) to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to direct the respondents to release the payment of Performance Related Pay (PRP) from the financial years 2009-10 to 2013-14 without reference to any recovery forthwith pending disposal of this writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.MURALI LINCOLN Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.C VR RUDRA PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2.VSUBRAHMANYAM The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VI3AY W.P.No.15226 of 2024 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondents (i) in not paying the PRP to the Petitioners during the financial years 2009-10, 2010-11, 201.1-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14; (ii) in not paying the employer contribution to RINL pension scheme; (iii) to declare that HR policy circular 15/20 dated 31.07.2020 is not applicable to the Petitioners; (iv) to declare that the Respondents are liable to pay employer contribution to RINL Pension along with interest without affecting adjustment/set of leave encashment availed by the Petitioners at the time of retirement; (v) to declare that the Respondents are liable to pay PRP amounts without affecting any recovery of the leave encashment availed by the Petitioners at the time of their retirement as per office order dated 30.12.2013; (vi) to declare that the payments made towards leave encashment to the Petitioners prior to December, 2013 are proper and within the approved rules; (vii) direct the Respondents to release the payment of PRP for the years 2009-10 to 2013-14 per the eligibility with interest and costs and (viii) direct the Respondents to pay the employer contribution to RINL Pension any as 2 scheme without reference to HR Policy Circular No. 15/2020 dated 31.07.2020 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned standing counsel for the Respondents would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.32634 of 2016 and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. 4. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms of the order, dated 29.12.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.32634 of 2016. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 29.12.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.32634 of 2016 to this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTYREGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //true copy// To Ministry of Heavy Industries and -1 nirector The Government of India ^ ■ Department of Public Enterprises, Public Enterpnses Lodi Road, New Dehi - 110003. Ministry of Steel, (VSP), Public Enterprises, Block No. 14, CGO Complex 2. The Under Secretary. Government of India Bhavan Udvoa Bhavan, New Delhi, and Managing Director, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited Steel Plant (VSP), Visakhapatnam. 3. The Chairman RINL, Visakhapatnam 4. The Director Personnel, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (VSP), Visakhapatnam. 5. One CC to SRI MURAL! LINCOLN Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI C V R RUDRA PRASAD (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI V SUBRAHMANYAM Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies Gsg (Along with Copy of Order dated 29.12.2022 in WP. No. 32634 of 2016) HIGH COURT DATED: 31/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 15226 OF 2024 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS 'I-/ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.32634 OF 2016 ORDER: The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.l of 2021 seeking amendment of the prayer of the Writ Petition and the said application has been allowed vide order dated 03.01.2022 and the Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer; "To issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or appropriate writ pleased to; (i) declare the action of respondents in not paying the employer contribution to RINL pension (defined contribution) scheme is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust; (ii) declare that the HR Policy Circular 15/20 dated 31.07.2020 is not applicable in so far as the petitioners; (iii) declare that the Respondents are liable to pay employer contribution to RINL Pension (Defined Contribution) along with interest without affecting any adjustment/set off of leave encashment availed by the Petitioners at the time of retirement; (iv) declare the action of the Respondents in non-payment of PRP to the Petitioners during the financial years 2009- 2 10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 is illegal and arbitrary; and (v) Declare that the Respondents are liable to pay PRP amounts without affecting any recovery of the leave encashment availed by the Petitioners at the time of their retirement as per the office order dated 30.12.2013; (vi) direct the Respondents to release the payment of PRP for the years 2009-10 to 2013-14 as per eligibility to the Petitioners with interest and costs without reference to the recovery of the encashment of the leaves paid to the employees at the time of their retirement and (vii) direct the Respondents to pay the employer contribution to RINL Pension (Differed Contribution) Scheme without reference to HR Policy Circular No. 15/2020 dated 31.07.2020; (viii) Declare that the payments made towards leave encashment to the Petitioners prior to December, 2013 are proper and within the approved rules as on the date; (ix) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that not-extending the benefit of Performance Related Pay (PRP) for the period from 2009-10 to 2013-14, which the same 3 has been extended to all the employees except to petitioners superannuation prior to December, 2013, and also to direct not to recover the leave encashment availed by the petitioners at the time of their retirement during April, 2007 to November, 2013, and it is also the contention of the petitioners that the retired employees requested for release of PRP benefits and the respondent-Company , vide letter No.VSP/RTI/3810 dated 06.06.2016, stated that PRP amount will be paid only to the Board level executives and below Board level executives including non-unionized supervisors for the financial years 2010-11 to 2012-13 in November, 2014 and with regard to the retired employees, it was stated that PRP amounts for 2010-11 to 2013-14 will be paid to all the the years eligible/separated employees after adjustment of leave encashment amount paid earlier in excess of 300 days. The further grievance of the petitioners is that about 248 retired employees were not paid the PRP on account of recovery of the leave salary in excess of 300 days, in terms of the observation of the Comptoller and Auditor General, Ministry of Steel who has directed the respondent-RINL to recover the excess of HPL from April, 2007 to December, 2013. The amount (encashment of leave) was recovered from the benefits of PRP and other benefits, therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4 S'lvi 3. It is the contention of the writ petitioners that the Rules and Regulations of the RINL, the Board Level and Below Board Level Executives, including Non-unionized Supervise eligible to avail 30 days Earned Leave (EL), 20 days Half Pay Leave (HPL) per year during their service. The employees can avail the said leaves in their respective years itself or can accumulate the as per rs are said leaves as per the rules. The employees, who have not availed EL and HPL in a particular year, can accumulate ELs upto 300 days and HPL upto 480 days during their The employees are entitled to encash upto 30 days of ELs every year on completion of two years of initial service subject to their availability, employees are also entitled to un-availed leaves at the time of their service. The superannuation and the said amounts which are being paid to the employees at the time of their retirement. 4. It is asserted in the writ affidavit that the encashment of leave approved by the Board of Directors in the year 1982 and the same was incorporated in the Personnel Manual of the respondent-company, vide Chapter-39. Vide PP circular No.4/06 dated 08.05.2006, communicated the revised ceiling on the 5 f accumulation of EL, earlier ceiling of 240 days was enhanced to 300 days. It is the contention of the petitioners that the office 5. order dated 30.12.2013, restricting the leave encashment to 300 days (both EL and HPL taken together) and the office memorandum dated 31.07.2020 to set off such dues from the employer’s contribution and the employees contribution including interest accrued thereon, if any, it will be adjusted before transferring the fund to RINL ESBF Trust or the prospective in nature and the same cannot be given effect retrospectively. It is axiomatic that the petitioners are entitled to PRP and the office memoranda have come into force after retirement from the service and the said memo cannot be applied to the petitioners. It is the further contention of the petitioners that not paying the employer contribution towards RINL Employees Pension Scheme is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and the HR Policy Circular No. 15/20 (Circular letter No.HR/RR/8(ll)cdek/199) dated 31.07.2020 is not applicable in so far as the petitioners are concerned and to direct the respondents to pay the employer contribution towards RINL Employees Pension (Defined Contribution) Scheme and therefore 6 prayed to set aside the circular memo and to direct the respondents to release the PRP to the petitioners. The petitioners relied on the judgment of the HonlDle Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others u. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etcJ, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court laid guidelines for recovery of the amount which was paid to the employees and the said guidelines are extracted hereunder: "(i) Recovery from belonging to Class-Ill and Class-IV service (or Group 'C and Group 'D' service), (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of 6. some recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued, (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even excess (2015) 4 see 334 7 though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee. would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. 7. The respondents have issued the following orders: Human Resources Department Policies and Rules, vide circular No. 15/20, HR/RR/8(1 l)cdek/199 dated 31.07.2020, amended existing policy of pension, which is extracted below: Clause Amended Existing No. 12(1) member / beneficiary, who does not clear the dues of the company on separation, will be eligible for Pension Corpus only after clearing dues from the Company. Member/beneficiary will be eligible for Pension Corpus only after clearing his dues to the Company. A However, any amount due to RINL, the Company reserves the right to set off such dues from employer’s contribution including interest accrued thereon, if any. This will be adjusted before transferring the fund to RINL ESBF Trust. the -*» As per the above office memorandum, the member/beneficiary will be eligible for pension corpus only after clearing dues from the company. And the respondents and also issued dated 30.12.2013, restricting both ELs and days in the following an office order HPL together to 300 manner; "Pending final decision on the issue, Leave Encashment at the time of retirement will be restricted to 300 days (both EL and HPL together) as per DPE Letter No.2(14)/2012 DPE{WC), dtd. 17th July, 2012. taken 2. No commutation of Half Pay Leave would be permissible to make up the shortfall to Earned Leave. 3. The above shall come into force with effect from December, 2013. 4. This issue with the approval of the Competent Authority." 8. An office memorandum order No.PL/RR/2{l)/2322 issued notifying that the leave encashment at the time of retirement would be restricted to 300 days (both and HPL taken together) (WC) dated 17.07.2012. dated 30.12.2013 was EL per the DPE letter No.2(14)/2012DPE as 9 As per the DPE letter, Half Pay Leave would be permissible to make up the shortfall in Earned Leave and the same 9. will be effective from December, 2013. The respondents, vide letter No.VSP/RTI/3810 dated 06.06.2016, stated that PRP amount paid to the Board Level 10. Executives and below Board Level Executives including non- unionized supervisors for the financial years 2010-11 to 2012-13 in November, 2014 and with regard to the retired employees, it was stated that PRP amounts for the years 2010-11 to 2013-14 will be paid to all the eligible/separated employees after adjustment of leave encashment amount paid earlier in excess of 300 days and it intimated that 248 retired employees were not paid PRP on account of recovery of the leave salary excess of 300 days. The said contention was taken by the respondents in terms of the observations of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Ministry of Steel, who has directed the respondent-RINL to recover the excess of HPL from April, 2007 to December, 2013. The said action is impugned in the present Writ Petition. was 10 11. The respondents filed their counter affidavit and contend that they have withheld the amounts of the PRP on the directives of Department of Public Enterprises in accordance with law the observations and directives of the Comptroller and Auditor General and also admitted that the petitioners are entitled for PRP and it is only a dispute with regard to the excessive encashment of half pay leave, which was directed to be recovered from whatever amounts due from the retired employees and accordingly, when the amounts under PRP were found to be due, the same were adjusted towards the excess payment, which is legal and cannot be questioned by the petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. And in the counter, none of the contentions raised by the writ petitioners were denied by the respondents either specifically or evasively. The issues before this Court are: (1) Whether the 12. respondents can withhold and adjust the money due to the petitioners by setting of dues from employees’ contribution after superannuation in view of the directives in the DPE Letter No.2(14)/2012, DPE (WC) dated 17.07.2012, as the petitioners were retired from serviee from the year 2007 to 2013, i.e., prior to the 11 (2) Whether the respondents can restrict leave encashment to 300 days (both EL and HPL taken together) as per DPE Letter 2(14)/2012 dated 17.07.2012? and (3) As the Circular No. 15/20 dated 31.07.2020 and the office order dated 30.12.2020 issued subsequent to the retirement of the petitioners herein? said memo? were As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the of Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar and another^, as including rules, regulations, notifications and Government Orders and, as such, when a Government Order is passed by a relevant Department of the Government, it must be construed as nothing but a delegated legislative act that had been 13. case done by executive effect. The Honhle Supreme Court in number of judgments, observed that though it was open to a sovereign Legislature to enact laws which have retrospective operation. The Court further observed, next, that where any rule or regulation is made by any rule-making authority to whom such powers have been delegated by the Legislature, it may or may not be possible for that authority to make rules so as to give retrospeetive operation, and the 14. ^ AIR 1951 SC 458 12 question will depend on the language employed in the statutory provision, which may, in express terms or by necessary implication, empower the authority concerned to make a rule or regulation with retrospective effect. Having stated the position thus with reference to (i) retrospective legislation enacted by the Legislature and (ii) retrospective rule-making by subordinate rule-making authorities, the Supreme Court proceeded to examine what the position would be in regard to executive acts, which the Legislature authorised the 15. executive to perform. The Court observed that in such cases it would be more necessary to consider the scope of the power which the Legislature conferred on the executive with a view to find out whether it could be exercised by the executive retrospectively. There-are no words in the office memorandum to indicate that it could give effect with retrospective effect. 16. The respondents cannot apply office memoraudum dated 31.07.2020 retrospectively and to recover dues after retirement of the employee long back and restricting the leave, i.e EL, HPL, limiting to 300 days after retirement of the petitioners. 13 17. As per the judgment of the Hon hie Apex Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (1 supra), no recovery shall be made from the employees belonging to Class-Ill and Class-IV services. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents herein to pay Performance Related Pay (PRP) to the petitioners without recovering the amount from encashment of Earned Leave basing upon the office orders indicated above. The respondents are hereby directed to pay all the dues, which the petitioners are entitled to, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioners are entitled to interest @ 18% per annum. 18. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date; 29.12.2022 TJN