Judgment:
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. The petitioner had moved this Court earlier by filing a writ petition being W.P.S. No. 6707/2005 stating therein that he took voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31/03/1997 from the service of the respondent No. 1 Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. He claims that as per the recommendation of the pay revision Committee which came into its effect from 01/01/1996, he was entitled to the difference of pay as per the revised pay scale. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by giving direction to the General manager, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to the payment of difference of pay and other benefits as per the revised pay scale and take a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
2. The petitioner made representation along with a copy of the said order vide Annexure-5 to the General Manager, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited alleging that on a similar facts and circumstances the respondent company revised the pay scale of Sri R.D. Ram, Deputy Manager (Personnel) w.e.f. 01/01/1996. By the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 dated 02/05/2006, the General Manager, rejected the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that because of the severe financial crunch being faced by the company since several past years, the company took a decision to revise the pay scale of its employee and release the monetary benefit only w.e.f. 01/01/1998. It has been stated that the company has not made payment of the benefits of arrears pursuant to the revision of pay scale to any of its employee, who retired on 31/12/1997 or even working in the roll of the company since the pay revision has been made applicable w.e.f. 01/01/1998 only.
3. The petitioner has challenged this order contained in Annexure-6 dated 02/05/2006, passed by the General Manager stating that the reason assigned by the General Manager for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is contrary to Annexure-2, i.e. the order issued by the Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited dated 30th September 1999, which shows that consequent upon the revision of pay scale the basic pay of one Sri R.D. Ram, Deputy Manager (Personnel) was fixed in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01/01/1996.
Therefore, the statement made by the respondents in the impugned order that no employee either retired or on the roll, has been paid the benefits of arrears of pay w.e.f. 01/01/1996 is wrong.
4. No doubt Annexure-2 shows that the pay in the revised pay scale of Sri R.D. Ram, Deputy Manager (Personnel) was fixed w.e.f. 01/01/1996 but nowhere it is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that in fact the said R.D. Ram was being paid or has been paid the monetary benefit as per Annexure-2.
5. However, from the counter affidavit I also find that the respondents have also no where denied specifically the allegation made by the petitioner that R.D. Ram was given the monetary benefit of the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01/01/1996.
6. Considering the rival contention of the parties, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents that if in fact the said R.D. Ram, Deputy Manager (Personnel) has been paid the arrears of pay or has/is being given the other benefits in the revised scale w.e.f. 01/01/1996 then they cannot discriminate the petitioner by giving him the said benefit from any other date and, therefore, in such a situation they shall pass an appropriate order giving the same benefit to the petitioner, which was/is being given to R.D. Ram, Deputy Manager (Personnel).
With these observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of.