JUDGMENT A.S.NAIDU, J. : This Writ Petition has a chequered career. The dispute relates back to nineteen hundred sixties. The Government of India had entrusted the work of construction of Hirakud Dam Project to the Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation Commission. During the construction period 1,200 (one thousand two hundred) (approx) employees under work-charged establishment were recruited by the Commission. All of them were enjoying pay, D.A. and other benefits as admissible to the employees under the Central Public Works Department (for short ‘CPWD’). After comple¬tion of construction up to Stage-I, the State Government took over the project with effect from 1.4.1960. In consonance with a Notification issued on 8.9.1961 the employees recruited prior to 1.4.1960 were allowed to continue in the same scales of pay and conditions of service as were applicable to them on 31.3.1960. 2. During such continuance, however, the State Government found certain disparity in the scales of pay of the same catego¬ries of employees doing same nature of work, inasmuch as those who had been recruited prior to 1.4.1960 were enjoying the scales of pay as enjoyed by employees of the Central Government of their category, but then those employed after the said date were enjoy¬ing the scales of pay prescribed by the State Government for similar category of employees. To remove the anomaly, a decision was taken to it retrench all the employees recruited prior to 1.4.1960 and re-appointed them, one day after, in the State scales of pay. The employees who were affected thereby, ap¬proached different Courts and ultimately the matter went up to Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.343 of 1974. The Supreme Court by judgment delivered on 30.8.1985 observed as follows: “We therefore allow this appeal and declare that the workmen working in the work-charged establishment of the Hirakud Project from before 1.4.1960 are entitled to the same scales of pay and other conditions of service as before, as if they are employees of the work-charged establishment of the Central Public Works Department.” 3. Thereafter steps were taken to regularise the services of the workmen concerned. While doing so, again several disputes cropped up with regard to initial appointment of the concerned employees, the posts held and the benefits enjoyed by them, etc. Thereafter steps were taken to regularise the services of the workmen concerned. While doing so, again several disputes cropped up with regard to initial appointment of the concerned employees, the posts held and the benefits enjoyed by them, etc. in view of the fact that by efflux of time most of the employees had retired on attaining age of superannuation and some of them had been promoted and were holding higher posts. A number of cases were filed before the Labour Court. 4. The Labour Court by its order dated 25.5.1989 held that where a workman had been promoted after being absorbed in the State Service, his pay in the State scale would be fixed only in the promotional post and the financial benefits to which he would be entitled would be calculated on that basis. Faced with some problems; the State Government filed a petition before the Labour Court for modification of the aforesaid order. The Labour Court by order dated 30.1.1982 clarified as follows : “In case where a workman had been promoted after being absorbed in the State Service, his pay is not to be fixed in the promotional post while calculating his benefits.” 5. The aforesaid order dated 30.1.1982 was assailed before this Court on the ground that the same had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. This Court quashed the said order and directed the Labour Court to re-hear the matter. The petition for modification was thereafter heard once again and disposed of by order dated 30.11.2004. The said order is assailed in this Writ Petition by the Management of Hirakud Dam Project. 6. The Labour Court after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties in para-13 of the impugned order observed as follows : “On close analysis of the facts and circumstances, order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and order of this Court dtd. 11.5.1994 in Misc.Case No. 1/9 of 88 (SC), it is found that the guidelines fixed by this Court in Misc.Case No.1/9 of 88 (SC) which is identical to this case, are squarely applicable to this case in so far as the benefit, the employees of work-charged establishment of CPWD entitled to get, where such employees (workmen) were promoted to the higher post and their pay had been fixed in the State scale on promotion. In this respect the guide¬lines fixed in this case vide order dtd.25.5.1989 are quite similar to the guidelines fixed in M.C.No.1/9 of 88 (SC). In view of the above, the order dtd.25.5.1989 passed by this Court found to be not against the spirit of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dtd.13.8.1985 nor there is any clerical or typographical mistake in the said order. Therefore, the petition dtd.19.12.1989 filed by the management for modification of the order dtd.25.5.1989 having been devoid of merit, deserves no considera¬tion. Accordingly, the same is rejected. The management is di¬rected to comply with the direction in the order dtd.25.5.1989 forthwith.” 7. According to Mr.Nayak, learned Sr.Advocate appearing for the petitioner the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2004 is con¬trary to the letter and spirit of the judgment of the Supreme Court. He submitted that the Supreme Court directed that the workmen working under the work-charged establishment of Hirakud Dam Project before 1.4.1960 were entitled to get the same scales of pay with the same conditions of service as before as if they were employees of the work-charged establishment of CPWD. Thus, the only way the order can be implemented is that to relegate back to their position as on 1.4.1960 and their pay and allow¬ances may be fixed at the rates available to them on that date. According to Mr.Nayak, the employees who were brought under State Service and who enjoyed promotional benefits should now forego the said benefits and the Management would recalculate their financial benefits afresh. 8. The aforesaid submission of Mr.Nayak is strongly repu¬diated by Mr.Ashok Mohanty, learned Sr.Advocate, appearing for the workmen. According to Mr.Mohanty, the Supreme Court never meant to bring a stagnation in the services of the workmen and relegate them to the positions as on 1.4.1960. According to him the Supreme Court only directed that those employees who were in service before 1.4.1960, i.e. date on which the Dam Project was handed over to the State Government should be permitted to enjoy the benefits which were available to them under the Central Government pay structure. The said order is being misinterpreted by the Management. 9. This Court heard learned counsel for both sides at length. The said order is being misinterpreted by the Management. 9. This Court heard learned counsel for both sides at length. As stated earlier, the dispute cropped up in 1963 when the State Government took the decision to retrench the work-charged employees originally working under CPWD and re-employ them one day after in the State scales of pay. The dispute continued till 1985 when Civil Appeal No.349 of 1974 was disposed of by the Supreme Court and in fact is continuing till date. Thus more than forty-four years have passed in the meanwhile. That apart, it appears that in a similar case, State of Orissa v. Kambhupani Mohapatra. OJC No. 13008 of 2001, a Division Bench of this Court by judgment passed on 11.4.2006, after referring to all the Notifications issued by the State Government, turned down the plea taken by the State Government and protected the salary of Kambhupani, a similarly placed employee. Even otherwise, it appears that within the aforesaid long stretch of more than forty years, most of the workmen who were in service on 1.4.1960, the cut-off date fixed by the Supreme Court, have retired. Payment of pension and other retirement dues being no more a bounty, it is incumbent on the State Government to disburse the same to them as expeditiously as possible. In the case at hand, the poor workmen have been deprived of their legitimate dues and are running from pillar to post. They were forced to continue litigation for so many years. According to the direction of the Supreme Court issued in Civil Appeal No.343 of 1974 (supra) the workmen were deemed to be continuing in the establishment and are entitled to scale of pay and other conditions as before. Thus the only way the order can be worked out after forty-seven years from the date of retrenchment is to notionally work out the scales of pay, increments, promotions, etc. which were part of conditions of service. 10. Considering all these aspects and to avoid multiplicity of litigations as also to bring an end to the dispute, this Court feels that ends of justice would be better served if the peti¬tioner Management is directed to compute the pension and other retirement dues legally payable to the workmen concerned on the basis of the last pay drawn by them. Considering all these aspects and to avoid multiplicity of litigations as also to bring an end to the dispute, this Court feels that ends of justice would be better served if the peti¬tioner Management is directed to compute the pension and other retirement dues legally payable to the workmen concerned on the basis of the last pay drawn by them. This Court further directs the petitioner-Management to make the aforesaid computation and disburse the dues of the workmen who have retired from service as expeditiously as possible. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of communication of this judgment, if there will be no impediment. So far as other employees who are in service are concerned, it is open to the management to work out the amount payable by adopting notional calculations. Order accordingly.