Employees of government companies are not entitled to claim that the government should pay their salary or meet the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay scale.

JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. The facts of W.A.No.999 of 2007 are reproduced as under:

3. The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 01.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review W.P.M.P.No.27079 of 2007 in W.P.No.9810 of 1998.

4. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent No.1 herein/writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as, the employee), who was serving the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, was paid salary as per the Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pattern until he retired from service voluntarily. The employee, in the light of the instructions issued by the Management dated 21.10.1995 has accepted the voluntary retirement with effect from 31.07.1997. The employee received all the benefits under the said voluntary retirement scheme. In spite of the same, the employee filed the writ petition seeking arrears of wages under the V Pay Revision Commission Recommendations. The said writ petition has been disposed of directing the respondents in the writ petition to fix the pay of the employee notionally with effect from 01.01.1997 till the date of his voluntary retirement i.e., 31.07.1997 and a direction has also been issued for payment of all arrears of retiral benefits to the employee. The Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited and another (hereinafter referred to as, the employer) has filed the review petition challenging the aforesaid order. The said review petition was dismissed, against which the present writ appeal has been preferred by the employer.

5. Learned counsel for the employer has drawn the attention of this Court towards the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited v. Arvind Kumar Dixit and another, (2015) 2 SCC 535. The dispute therein was in respect of wage revision and the writ petitions preferred by the employees were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, and the Central Administrative Tribunal has held that the employees who retired on or before 01.04.2003 would be given similar treatment by revision in notional pay (with actual pensionary benefits). Challenging the said order, the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited has approached the Bombay High Court by filing writ petitions which were dismissed. The matter was then carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the appeals by setting aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the employee in the present case has argued before this Court that the employee was seeking wage revision with effect from 01.01.1997.

7. The issue of wage revision from 01.01.1997 has also been looked into by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the fact reveals that the employer has issued an order dated 25.08.2006 stating thereunder that even though wage revision was due from 01.01.1997, the wage revision was to be implemented with effect from 01.04.2006 allowing the employees who were superannuated/voluntarily retired with effect from 01.04.2003. The relevant portion of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited (supra) is reproduced as under:-

“11. From the above Letter dated 8-8-2006, it is clear that wage revision of the employees, effective only from 1-4-2003, was to be implemented w.e.f. 1-4-2006. In this connection, when the clarification is sought by the appellant Corporation, the Government of India vide Letter dated 17-8-2006 (Annexure P-13), clarified its stand on the recommendations of the Board for Reconstruction of Public Sector Enterprises (BRPSE). Accordingly, Office Order dated 25-8-2006 was issued by the appellant Corporation allowing wage revision to those who were on employment roll on 1-4-2003. The conjoint reading of the letters issued by the Governm