JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 5. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as well as Mr. P. Nayak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6.

2. The facts in both the writ petitions being similar and the question of law involved are paramateria, both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.

3. The issue involved in the writ petition filed at a later point of time pertains to as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to the revision of pay in terms with the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 as well as other benefits as claimed in the writ petitions. It further transpires from a perusal of the writ petition registered as WP (C) No. 807/2013 that it is the case of the petitioners that in terms with the Wage Board’s recommendation, the age of the superannuation was 60 years and also as per the Government of Assam’s Office Memorandum dated 25.01.2005, the age of retirement of Grade-IV employees was 60 years whereas the retirement age all other employees was enhanced from 58 to 59 years. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioners herein that while settling the VRS entitlement of the petitioners, they have been deprived on the basis of not calculating their entitlement in terms with the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 as well as not calculating their age of retirement as 59 years or 60 years as the case may be for Grade-III and Grade-IV employees respectively.

4. At this stage, it may be relevant herein to mention that the petitioners in WP (C) No. 807/2013, sought for the relief for recalculating the retirement benefits by giving up-to-date revision of pay as per the Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 and taking the age of superannuation as 60 years to the petitioners and to pay them all further benefits consequent thereto.

5. This Court has made a specific query upon the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why two writ petitions were filed by the same set of writ petitioners except the few who have been left out in the second litigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the second writ petition, the claim of the petitioners is on the basis of calculation of VRS benefits in terms with the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 and also as certain claims pertaining to Medical Allowances and House Rent Allowances were left out in the earlier writ petition, the same have been claimed in the writ petition filed at a later point of time.

6. Let this Court first take into consideration as to the entitlement of the petitioners in terms with the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010. The petitioners herein admittedly were employed in a public undertaking of the Government of Assam. It is relevant to take note of that on 04.02.2010, a notification was issued by the Government of Assam, Finance (PRU) Department thereby notifying the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2010’). Although in terms with Rule 1(b) of the said Rules of 2010, it was brought into effect on 01.01.2006, but in terms with the Rule 2 (b) (v), it was categorically mentioned that unless specifically extended under express order of the Government, the Rules of 2010 shall not apply to officers and staff of public undertaking of the Government of Assam. A perusal of Annexure-12 in WP (C) No. 6027/2022 shows that it was only vide the communication dated 26.09.2012, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Industries and Commerce Department had informed the Managing Director of the Assam Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC) Ltd., the decision of the Government in the Industries and Commerce Department’s approval to the proposal for revision of pay of the employees of AIDC Ltd. as per the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010. From a perusal of the said document, however, it do