Yashpal Minocha v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1294 of 2017 • Yashpal Minocha S/o Late Shri Suraj Prakash Minocha, Aged About 71 Years R/o H-27 Harmu Housing Colony, Harmu, Ranchi, Jharkhand ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Through Its ChairmanCum- Managing Director, 5/1, Commercial Road, Hastings, Kolkata (West Bengal)

2. Sr. Executive (Personnel), Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Nirman Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate.

For Respondents :

Shri N. Naha Roy, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 16/03/2017 1.

Petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent - Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited ('HSCL' in short) having applied and granted voluntary retirement under the scheme floated by the HSCL. 2.

Relief claimed in this petition is for release of retiral and other dues for which the petitioner is entitled in accordance with law including the VRS Scheme.

3.

The issue pertaining to retiral and other benefits admissible to a retired employee of HSCL has already been considered by this Court in WP No.2 of 2001 and in WA No.185 of 2007 and other connected writ appeals decided on 3-2-2015.

4.

It is not disputed by Shri Roy that the SLP preferred against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

5.

In view of the orders passed by this Court in WP No.2 of 2001 and WA No.185 of 2007 and other connected writ appeals and the affirmation of the same by the Supreme Court, the present writ petition is disposed of in similar terms with a direction that the petitioner shall file a fresh representation before the HSCL claiming all admissible dues including the amount withheld within a period of one month from today. The respondent HSCL shall, thereafter, decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order, in an objective manner, and shall pay the entire admissible dues to the petitioner within a further period of two months from the date of submission of representation by the petitioner.

6.

It is made clear that if the petitioner feels dissatisfied by rejection of any of his claim he would be at liberty to move afresh before this Court. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE chandra