Ram Milan And 26 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4394 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 35
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3030 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Ram Milan And 26 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajjan Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aditya Bhushan Singhal,Sanjay Kumar Om,Suresh Singh
 
Connected with
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13214 of 2015
 
Petitioner :- Naresh Prasad Srivastava And 13 Ors.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Bhushan,Adarsh Bhushan,Arpan Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Q.H. Siddiqui,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey,Vimal Swaroop Srivastava,Vimlesh Kumar Rai
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3032 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Yatendra Prakash Singhal And 40 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Vikram Singh,Damodar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Om,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3135 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Vivek Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3310 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Har Narayan Sharma And 14 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Narayan Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3342 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Vishambhar Singh And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3355 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Ram Das And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3368 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Ram Singh And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3546 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Shahzad Khan
 
Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Subodh Kumar Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Pranjal Mehrotra,Anubhav Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3940 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Shyamveer And 21 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajit Dubey,Amit Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3941 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Nirmal Singh And 32 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajit Dubey,Amit Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3965 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Kalawati Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Keshav Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4097 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Komee Lal And 9 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Subodh Kumar Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4292 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Vimlesh Kmari Verma And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Nath
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4452 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Surendra Prasad Upadhyay And 7 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4832 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Rajendra Prakash
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Nath
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4866 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Jai Pal Sharma
 
Respondent :- Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Subodh Kumar Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5407 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Brij Bihari Mishra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Azad Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aditya Bhushan Singhal,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5525 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Tribhuwan Nath Srivastava
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Azad Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5581 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Dhanpati Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Azad Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Om
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7809 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Ram Babu Raikwar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhole Ram
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Omkar Dutt Malviya
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7894 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Chetram Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Pal Singh Kashyap,Akshay Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh Singh
 
And
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7903 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Sri Hari Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Pal Singh Kashyap,Akshay Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Om
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri Rajjan Singh, Sri K.K.Tiwari, and Sri S.N.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, Sri Anubhav Singh, Sri Suresh Singh and Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned Advocate assisted by Sri Shadab Hussain, learned Advocates, all appearing for the respondents U.P. Jal Nigam Rural/Urban respectively.

2. In this bunch of writ petitions, the claim raised by the petitioners in respect of benefit of pay revision and consequential pay fixation applying recommendation of 6th pay commission.

3. It transpires from the record that matter earlier had travelled to the Lucknow bench of this Court in Writ Petition Service Single No. 11991 of 2017 (Kamesh Srivastava and 5 Others v. The State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Nagar Vikas and 3 Others) that was disposed of in following terms:

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kishor Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Risabh Kapoor, learned counsel and Sri I.P. Singh, learned counsels for respondent corporation and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the orders dated 30.01.2014, 22.08.2014, 14.12.2010, 29.11.2010, 12.04.2010, and 12.03.2010 and further for a mandamus commanding the opposite parties to implement the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission on the petitioners w.e.f. from 01.01.2006, i.e., since the same was made applicable upon the State Government employees. Further an interest is also sought on the delayed payment of the 6th and 7th Pay Commission and also prayer is made for payment of dearness allowance to the petitioners in accordance with the Government Order dated 28.05.2010.

3. After the coming into force of 6th Pay Commission, different orders were passed recommending the benefits of payments of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners w.e.f. 12.03.2010 while the State Government employees were paid the said benefits from 01.01.2006. Petitioners are praying parity with the State Government employees.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits petitioners were appointed with the Local Self Government Engineering Department of the State of U.P. Later, U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 came into force and, therefore, in furtherance of the provisions of the said Act, U.P. Jal Nigam was established and petitioners became employees of U.P. Jal Nigam. Further he submits that as per Section 37 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 read with Regulation 31 of U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978, the service conditions of employees of the Jal Nigam are to be same as are applicable to the employees of the State Government. He further submits that the entire controversy with regard to the status of the employees of the Jal Nigam was considered at length by Supreme Court in case of Harwindra Kumar Vs. Chief Engineer, Karmik and Others reported in (2005) 13 SCC 300 and after referring to the provisions of the said Act, Rules and Regulations applicable, in paragraph-7, 9 and 10, the Supreme Court held-:

"7................From the aforesaid provisions, it would be clear that the appointed date for the purposes of the Act was 18th June, 1975 when the Nigam was established and under Section 37 of the Act, conditions of service of the appellants/petitioners who were employed in the Local Self Engineering Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh before the appointed date, were continued to remain the same as they were before the appointed date unless and until the same are altered by the Nigam under the provisions of the Act. Section 97 confers power upon the Nigam with the previous approval of the State Government to frame Regulations in relation to service conditions of employees of the Nigam and acting thereunder, Regulations were framed by the Nigam in the year 1978, Regulation 31 whereof provides that service conditions of the employees of the Nigam shall be governed by such rules, regulations and orders which are applicable to other serving government servants functioning in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, from a bare reading of Section 37 and Regulation 31, it would be clear that the service conditions of the employees of the Nigam would be the same as are applicable to the employees of the State Government under the Rules, Regulations and Orders applicable to such government servants so long the same are not altered by the Nigam in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If Regulations would not have been framed, the Nigam had residuary power under Section 15(1) of the Act whereby under general power it could change the service conditions and the same could remain operative so long regulations were not framed but in the present case, regulations were already framed in the year 1978 specifically providing in Regulation 31 that the conditions of service of the employees of the Nigam shall be governed by the Rules, Regulations and Orders governing the conditions of service of government servants which would not only mean then in existence but any amendment made therein as neither in Section 37 nor in Regulation 31, it has been mentioned that the Rules then in existence shall only apply. After the amendment made in Rule 56(a) of the Rules by the State Government and thereby enhancing the age of superannuation of government servants from 58 years to 60 years, the same would equally apply to the employees of the Nigam and in case the State Government as well as the Nigam intended that the same would not be applicable, the only option with it was to make suitable amendment in Regulation 31 of the Regulations after taking previous approval of the State Government and by simply issuing direction by the State Government purporting to act under Section 89 of the Act and thereupon taking administrative decision by the Nigam under Section 15 of the Act in relation to age of the employees would not tantamount to amending Regulation 31 of the Regulations.

9. In the present case, as Regulations have been framed by the Nigam specifically enumerating in Regulation 31 thereof that the Rules governing the service conditions of government servants shall equally apply to the employees of the Nigam, it was not possible for the Nigam to take an administrative decision acting under Section 15(1) of the Act pursuant to direction of the State Government in the matter of policy issued under Section 89 of the Act and directing that the enhanced age of superannuation of 60 years applicable to the government servants shall not apply to the employees of the Nigam. In our view, the only option for the Nigam was to make suitable amendment in Regulation 31 with the previous approval of the State Government providing thereunder age of superannuation of its employees to be 58 years, in case, it intended that 60 years which was the enhanced age of superannuation of the State Government employees should not be made applicable to employees of the Nigam. It was also not possible for the State Government to give a direction purporting to Act under Section 89 of the Act to the effect that the enhanced age of 60 years would not be applicable to the employees of the Nigam treating the same to be a matter of policy nor it was permissible for the Nigam on the basis of such a direction of the State Government in policy matter of the Nigam to take an administrative decision acting under Section 15(1) of the Act as the same would be inconsistent with Regulation 31 which was framed by the Nigam in the exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 97(2) of the Act.

10. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that so long Regulation 31 of the Regulations is not amended, 60 years which is the age of superannuation of government servants employed under the State of Uttar Pradesh shall be applicable to the employees of the Nigam. However, it would be open to the Nigam with the previous approval of the State Government to make suitable amendment in Regulation 31 and alter service conditions of employees of the Nigam, including their age of superannuation. It is needless to say that if it is so done, the same shall be prospective. "

5. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, submission made by counsel for petitioners is that service conditions of the employees of the Jal Nigam would be same as are applicable to the employees of the State Government under the Rules, Regulations and Orders applicable to the State Government servants so long as the same are not altered by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Applicability of the aforesaid judgment could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel and counsels for the respondent-corporation.

6. In the present case, only administrative orders are issued by the respondents and there is no alteration made with regard to the service conditions of the petitioners viz-a-viz the employees of the State Government. Merely by office orders change in the service conditions cannot be made. It is not disputed that benefits of the 6th Pay Commission are covered under the term 'service conditions' and, therefore, the said benefits are to be made applicable to the petitioners also from the date the same are made applicable to the State Government employees.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 30.01.2014, 22.08.2014, 14.12.2010, 29.11.2010, 12.04.2010, and 12.03.2010 are set aside and respondents are directed to pay the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as was provided to the State Government employees and further to pay the dearness allowance as is being provided to the State Government employees. Respondents are also directed to pay an interest of 6% on the aforesaid benefits from the date they became due till the date same are paid to the petitioners.

8. With the aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions are allowed.

(emphasis added)

4. This above judgment and order was challenged in special appeal bearing Special Appeal (Def.) No. 276 of 2020, in which judgment of Kamesh Srivastava and 5 others (supra) was affirmed in following terms:

"Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The delay of 238 days in filing the Special Appeal is condoned as the same has not been opposed and reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay (C.M.Application No. 63049 of 2020), are sufficient, in our view, to condone the delay in filing the present appeal.

Sri Shishir Jain Advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no. 1, which is taken on record.

Heard Dr. Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-appellants, Sri Shishir Jain, for respondent no. 1, Sri Ajay Kishor Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 and Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 7 and 8.

Dr. Udai Veer Singh, while assailing the judgment under appeal argued on two aspects i.e. providing benefit of pay/pay scale as per recommendations of Pay Commission is not covered under expression "Condition Of Service" and secondly the Section 89 empowers the State Government to issue direction to Nigam, which are binding and to be followed by Nigam.

Relying on the provisions of Regulations of 1978 particularly Regulation 26 and 31 as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harwindra Kumar Versus Chief Engineer, Karmik and Others reported in (2005) 13 SCC 3, Sri Shishir Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner-respondent, opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the State and also submitted that providing benefits of recommendation of Pay Commission is covered under the expression "Condition of Service", thus the judgment under appeal is not liable to be interfered.

This intra Court appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 27.2.2020 passed by the Writ Court, allowing three writ petitions in which Writ Petition No. 11991 (SS) of 217 (Kamlesh Srivastava and 5 others Versus State of U.P. and Others), is the leading one.

The respondents are erstwhile employees of Local Self Government Engineering Department, who were later on absorbed in the U.P. Jal Nigam established under the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (in short "1975 Act") and there were granted the benefits of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 12.3.2010 thus, they have approached the Writ Court, seeking relief that they are entitled to the benefits of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as has been provided to the State Government employees.

The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the basis of the provisions of Section 37 of U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 read with Regulation 31 of U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations,1978, which provides that the service conditions of employees of the Jal Nigam are to be same as are applicable to the employees of the State Government.

The learned Single Judge also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harwindra Kumar (Supra) , wherein the aforesaid provisions as also Section(s) 15(1), 89(1) and 97 of the 1975 Act, were considered and with regard to the age of superannuation it was held that the employees of the Jal Nigam are entitled to retire on completion of 60 year of age as is the age of superannuation prescribed for the State employees.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in dealing with the Section(s) 15(1), 89(1) and 97 of the 1975 Act, in para 9 of the judgment passed in the case of Harwindra Kumar (Supra) observed that " It was also not possible for the State Government to give a direction purporting to Act under Section 89 of the Act to the effect that the enhanced age of 60 years would not be applicable to the employees of the Nigam treating the same to be a matter of policy nor it was permissible for the Nigam on the basis of such a direction of the State Government in policy matter of the Nigam to take an administrative decision acting under Section 15(1) of the Act as the same would be inconsistent with Regulation 31 which was framed by the Nigam in the exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 97(2) of the Act".

The impugned judgment and order also observed that the benefits admissible under the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission are covered under the expression 'Conditions of Service'.

The expression "Conditions of Service" is of wide import. It means all those conditions which regulates the holding of a post by a person right from the time of appointment till his retirement and even beyond it in matter like pension etc. In this way as also in view of Regulation 26, which provides Pay Scale, and Regulation 31 of Regulations of 1978, which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harwindra Kumar (Supra) while extending the benefit of age of superannuation to the employee of Nigam wherein expression "Vetan" has been mentioned, we are of the view that providing benefit of the recommendations of Pay Commission is included in expression "Condition of Service".

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and findings written by the learned Single Judge as also the observations made by us, we do not find that there is any error or illegality in the impugned order.

The Special Appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed. "

(emphasis added)

5. Against this above judgment of Kamesh Srivastava, the State of U.P. and U.P. Jal Nigam approached the Supreme Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 3311 of 2022. Initially SLP was entertained and interim stay order was also prayed, so accordingly these matters were deferred.

6. Now counsel appearing for both the respective parties admit that special leave to appeal has come to be finally disposed of vide order dated 20th May, 2022, which is reproduced hereunder:

"We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf of U.P. Jal Nigam and Shri Ravindra Raizada, learned Senior Advocate/AAG appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and considering the decision of this Court in the case of Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer Karmik and Others, 2005(13) SCC 300 and on consideration of Regulation 31 of U.P. Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health Branch) Service Regulations 1978, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, at the same time looking to the financial difficulty projected by Ms. Bhati, learned ASG, we modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and direct that so far those employees who are working with U.P. Jal Nigam, the arrears for the period between 2006 and 2010 shall be deferred and same shall be credited in their GPF Account so that at the time of retirement, the same may be available and paid to them and at the same time the U.P. Jal Nigam is not burdened with such a huge financial liability immediately. It is also further observed and directed that so far those persons who are already retired on attaining the age of superannuation, they shall be paid the actual arrears for which three months time is granted to U.P. Jal Nigam to pay the arrears. It is further directed that if the amount as above, to be deposited in the GPF Account, is deposited within a period of six months from today, arrears shall not carry any interest, otherwise it shall carry the interest @ 6 % per annum. Similarly, with respect to those employees who have already retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the meantime, if they are paid arrears within a period of four months from today, in that case it shall not carry any interest, failing which it shall carry the interest @ 6% per annum. 

It also goes without saying that the aforesaid directions shall be applicable with respect to those employees who are not paid any difference pursuant to the judgment and order passed by the High Court as it is reported that during the pendency of the present Special Leave Petitions, some of the employees of U.P. Jal Nigam are already paid the arrears pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

With this, the present Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

(emphasis added)

7. The case of Kamesh Srivastava is sought to be distinguished on the ground that the petitioners covered in that case and connected matters are those petitioners who were employees of the State Government belonging to the erstwhile Local Self Government Engineering Department and when that department was abolished, they stood absorbed in the U.P. Jal Nigam as it was created in 1975. The controversy in respect of their claim regarding benefit of 6th Pay Commission at par with that at State Government employee arose as the department took a stand that their service conditions were to be governed under The UP. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 and the U.P. Engineering Health Services Regulation, 1978 but this plea came to be rejected by this Court and then by Supreme Court and they have been held entitled. It is thus submitted that petitioners cases are distinguishable as here many of the petitioners may not fall in that category.

8. Still further, it is argued by learned counsel appearing for U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) and (Urban) respectively that some of the petitioners fall in the category of those field employees daily wagers whose services came to be regularized in the U.P. Jal Nigam vide regularization order dated 26.04.2011. It is submitted that this regularization was accorded to them with retrospective effect from the date of their initial engagement, however, later on the department realized this to have been mistakenly issued and rectified it vide order dated 18.08.2020 withdrawing the benefit of regularization from retrospective effect and making it w.e.f. 2011. It is next submitted that this order dated 18.08.2020 came to be challenged before this Court in pending writ petition A No. 8703 of 2020 and such other writ petitions and interim order of stay is operating in all such matters.

9. On this above ground it is argued that the benefit of 6th Pay Commission recommendation may not be conferred upon those who have been regularized w.e.f. 2011. However, it is not denied that there is an interim order of stay operating over and above the order dated 18.08.2020. I also find from the perusal of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court that no such distinguishing feature had been pleaded before the Supreme Court and the directions issued are meant for all the employees of U.P. Jal Nigam Urban/Rural in service and retired.

10. So in view of the general directions issued by the Supreme Court coupled with the fact that there is stay order operating over and above order dated 18.08.2020, I am of the view that such employees who may be some of the petitioners here in this bunch of petitions, their cases cannot be distinguished, however, the benefits to be conferred upon them as per the directions of Supreme Court may abide by the result of the writ petition or the department, if so advised, may seek clarification from the Supreme Court by moving appropriate application.

10. The writ petitions thus stand disposed of with the direction that the petitioners' claim shall also be considered strictly in accordance with law in the light of observations made and directions issued by Supreme Court in the SLP (supra)

Order Date :- 27.5.2022

Sanjeev