JUDGMENT SANJIB BANERJEE, J. 1. -THE appeal arises out of an order dated September 5, 2008 by which W.P. 063 of 2008 was allowed. 2. OF the 48 petitioners in W.P. 063 of 2008, the first 47 are employees of the A and N Islands Forest and Plantation Development Corporation Ltd, the fifth respondent to the writ petition. The last petitioner is an association of the employees of the Corporation. Four employees of the Corporation had instituted proceedings on which a Division Bench order was ultimately made on November 24, 2005. By the order impugned in the present proceedings, the benefits conferred by the order dated November 24, 2005 on the other employees of the Corporation have been extended to the writ petitioners in the present proceedings. 3. The Corporation is one of the appellants herein. The order of the learned single Judge is challenged on three principal grounds. The appellants say that the writ petitioner-respondents are employees of the Corporation which may, at the highest, be seen as a public sector enterprise and, as such, the employees of a public sector enterprise cannot be equated with government employees who are entitled to the benefits under the Fifth Pay Commission. The appellants contend that, in any event, the writ petitioners are not entitled to enhanced payments in view of the precarious financial condition of the Corporation; the Corporation has been declared by the Central Government to be a sick public sector enterprise. In support of such second contention the appellants rely on a list of Central public sector enterprises prepared in the year 2006-07 which appears at pages 396-398 of the paper book. The Corporation is the 74th named in the list. The final contention of the appellants is that the learned single Judge did not deal with the arguments made on behalf of the Corporation in making the order on the writ petition. The appellants suggest that in addition to the two other grounds, the appellants had specifically referred to the cases of the 15th, 17th, 20th, 21st, 26th and 45th writ petitioners and had argued that such persons had been drawing salary under the Industrial dearness allowance pattern pay structure and could not be upgraded to be Central government employees entitled to revised pay scales under the Fifth Pay Commission. 4. There is a bit of history that needs to be recounted. 4. There is a bit of history that needs to be recounted. W.P. 94 of 2000 was instituted by some employees of the Corporation complaining of the refusal on the part of the Corporation to accept the Fifth Pay Commission Report for enhancing the salary structures of those petitioners. Such first writ petition was disposed of by an order of September 15, 2000 upon noticing a proposal made by a trade union and by holding as follows: "In this case, it appears that the said Corporation by a letter dated 14. 3.2000 communicated that the Ministry has turned down the proposal of the Trade Union for grant of upgraded pay scale to Forest Executives and Veterinary Staff of the Corporation on the ground that the employees of PSEs are eligible for replacement of pay scale only. By the aforesaid communication it has further been informed that the matter is still under constant pursuance with the Government of India and reply awaiting. In my considered view, the stand taken by die Central Government in not enhancing the pay scale of the writ petitioners No. 1 to 4 as well as the Members of the petitioner No.5 are not lawful and constitutional. Therefore, I hold that the petitioners are also entitled to be considered to the enhanced pay scale in the light of the Fifth Pay Commission Report. When a section of government employees have been enjoying enhanced pay scale, the other section of employees of the Government should not be deprived of this benefit." 4. The Corporation was directed to take a decision on the question of revision of "pay scales of the employees of the respondent No.4". For such purpose, the Corporation was given liberty to constitute a pay committee to examine all aspects in the light of the Fifth Pay Commission Report. The same set of petitioners instituted W.P. 101 of 2001 seeking a mandamus for upgraded pay scales to be notified in view of the observation of this Court in the order of September 15, 2000 on the earlier petition. It was noticed in the order dated October 15, 2001 by which WP 101 of 2001 was disposed of, that the petitioners therein had been informed by the Corporation that revised pay scales could not be granted to forest executives and veterinary staff of the Corporation. It was noticed in the order dated October 15, 2001 by which WP 101 of 2001 was disposed of, that the petitioners therein had been informed by the Corporation that revised pay scales could not be granted to forest executives and veterinary staff of the Corporation. No affidavit was used by the Union of India despite repeated opportunities having been afforded. Such fact is recorded in the order dated October 15, 2001. The Court found that since the order dated September 15, 2000, and the conclusion therein that the stand taken by the Central Government in not enhancing the pay scales of the petitioners therein was unlawful, had remained unchallenged the petitioners therein deserved to be offered new pay scales since they were engaged in discharging similar duties as Central Government employees. The learned Judge directed the Corporation to reconsider the matter in the light of the observation made in such order. The following paragraph from the order dated October 15, 2001 is of some relevance: "Thus I find that the job contents itself, responsibilities, recruitment rules and qualifications of the employees of the Corporation being similar to those of the Central Government employees employed in the forest department, there was no justification of totally refusing the benefit of new scale to the employees of the Corporation merely on the ground of existence of some excess benefit of leave encashment, bonus, T.A., LTC, medical reimbursement, P/F, gratuity etc. admissible to the petitioners. What was the actual amount of excess benefit received by the petitioners under those means has however not been indicated in the report." 5. AN appeal was carried from the order dated October 15, 2001 which was disposed of by observing that the "Pay Committee (of the Corporation) will consider the matter afresh by taking into account the guidelines and observations made by the learned single Judge in the order dated 15th October, 2001". Thus, the matter reached finality upon the Corporation not challenging the appellate order before the Supreme Court. 6. The third writ petition, WP 10 of 2003, was instituted by the same four officers who had brought the previous two petitions. Since the third petition involved matters of importance, the same was referred to a Division Bench. Thus, the matter reached finality upon the Corporation not challenging the appellate order before the Supreme Court. 6. The third writ petition, WP 10 of 2003, was instituted by the same four officers who had brought the previous two petitions. Since the third petition involved matters of importance, the same was referred to a Division Bench. By an order dated June 20, 2003, the entire matter was remitted to the committee that had been formed by the Corporation "to ascertain whether the conditions imposed in the notification as a pre-requisite for implementation of the revisions mentioned in Part C have been complied with in relation to the undertaking in which the petitioners are working and if not, how the superiors to the petitioners could get such revisions, if in fact they have got the same, and if so why the petitioners are not entitled to the same." This Division Bench order of June 20, 2003 was the subject matter of a review petition, RVW No.007 of 2003, whereupon the judgment and order dated June 20, 2003 was "recalled" and the following order was made: 'The Central Government as well as the Corporation is directed to extend the benefits of revised pay scale to the petitioners as applicable to the Central Government Officers discharging identical duties than that of the petitioners. The Central Government or Corporation may, however, refuse such benefits if there is any such reason apart from the reasons already- adjudicated earlier and discussed above. Such benefits must be extended and/or reasons for refusal in terms of this order must be communicated to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order." 7. AGAIN, the order dated November 24, 2005 passed on review remained unchallenged. 8. A fourth round of proceedings ensued with WP 083 of 2006 which was disposed of on March 28, 2007 by holding that the merits of the matter were not required to be revisited after the original orders conclusively pronouncing upon the matters in issue, had attained finality. In WP 083 of 2006 the decision of the Corporation made pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated November 24, 2005 had been assailed. In WP 083 of 2006 the decision of the Corporation made pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated November 24, 2005 had been assailed. The order dated November 24, 2005 permitted the Corporation to refuse the benefits to the writ petitioners in such proceedings on any ground apart from those that had already been adjudicated upon earlier and discussed in such order. The Corporation's decision of January 3, 2006 assailed in WP 083 of 2006 did not cite any ground other than those that had already been considered by the Court. Thus, the Corporation's decision of January 3, 2006 not to extend the benefits to the petitioners in WP 083 of 2006 was set aside and the Corporation was directed to extend the benefits of the upgraded pay scales to such petitioners. The order dated March 28, 2007 recognized that the rights of the petitioners therein had been upheld by successive orders of Count and if the Corporation could not think of any other reason, the enhanced pay scales had per force to be offered to the petitioners therein. Such Judgment rendered in the fourth round of proceedings was challenged in appeal. The appeal was dismissed on June 18, 2007 and a petition for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court carried therefrom was unsuccessful. Thus, the order dated March 28, 2007 as merged in the appellate order also attained finality. 9. The writ petitioner-respondents are employees of the Corporation and if it has been found that some employees of the Corporation are entitled to benefits under the Fifth Pay Commission, such benefits cannot be reserved unto a section of the Corporation's employees and not extended to all as it is implicit in such finding that employees of the Corporation have been deemed to be government employee. Since the order dated June 20, 2003 stood recalled by the order of November 24, 2005 on the review petition and it was held that the employees of the Corporation discharging identical duties as Central Government employees would be entitle to revised pay scales unless any additional argument not made there to before could be cited, it is not open to the appellants herein to urge that the employees of the Corporation would not be entitled to revised pay scales on the basis of the Fifth Pay Commission Report. 10. 10. WHAT the appellants endeavour to do in this appeal is precisely what is not open to them. The underlying submission is that the order dated November 24, 2005 should be revisited. Since such order has attained finality and a subsequent order of March 28, 2007 based thereon has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court, the appellants' essay to reopen a concluded matter that has attained finality cannot be appreciated. The appellants have referred to a judgment reported at 2003(5) SCC 163 [A. K. Bindal v. Union of India). Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the report have been placed for the proposition that the financial capacity of an employer is an important consideration in assessing whether its employees deserve an enhancement of pay scales. For similar import, a judgment reported at 2003(6) SCC 490 {Officers and Supervisors oflDPLv Chairman and MD, IDPL) has been cited and paragraphs 11, 12, 17 and 19 thereof relied upon. The principle laid down in such judgment is that employees who are not government servants cannot claim that their pay scales be revised and additional expenditure involved on account of revision be met by the government if the public sector enterprise employer is a sick government company. 11. SUCH principle does not hold good in the present case since by the earlier concluded orders the employees of the Corporation have been conferred the status of government servants by their being recognized to be entitled to enhanced pay scales in accordance with the Fifth Pay Commission Report. The correctness or otherwise of the earlier orders cannot be gone into now. SUCH orders have become final and the Corporation can no longer urge that its employees cannot be treated as government servants. The finality of an order or of a decision on a matter in issue is all about conclusivity and has nothing to do with the correctness thereof. The effect of the earlier orders cannot be bypassed in the present proceedings; if they have a deleterious cumulative impact, it is for a forum with more plenary powers than available here to correct the same. The two principal arguments put forth by the appellants are barred by the principle of issue estoppel. 12. A judgment reported at 2008 (3) SCC 180 (BharteshC. The two principal arguments put forth by the appellants are barred by the principle of issue estoppel. 12. A judgment reported at 2008 (3) SCC 180 (BharteshC. Jain v. Shoaib Ullah) is next placed for the proposition that if matters urged before a Court are not considered, such judgment is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for decision afresh. There may be other, better authorities for the proposition but it appears from the third paragraph of such judgment that ' the parties before the Supreme Court agreed that the order impugned did not meet the issues raised before the original forum and invited an order that the matter be remitted for a fresh decision. An order made by the Supreme Court at the invitation of parties would only demonstrate that the agreement between the parties was not illegal, but it is a far cry from suggesting it was the law laid down by the Supreme Court. A judgment reported at 2008(1) SCC 630 (Union of India and Ors. v. Hiranmoy Sen) is relied upon by the appellants. The Supreme Court held in that matter that the Court cannot fix pay scales of employees. In that case Post-A and Post-B carried the same pay scales and the Supreme Court observed that merely because the pay scales of Post-A had been increased it would not necessarily follow that the pay scales of Post-B should he taken to the same level. The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court does not appear to be of any assistance to the appellants in the facts of the present case. 13. IN the judgment reported at AIR 2008 SC 435 {Union of INdia v. Mohqjabeen Akhtar) next placed by the appellants, it was held that different posts cannot be granted parity merely by noticing that persons manning such posts were similarly qualified and had been performing similar functions. The underlying submission that the earliest decision rendered in the petition brought by the four employees of the Corporation should be reopened on the strength of this Judgment, does not appeal. To repeat, the matter has attained finality and the Corporation or the appellants can no longer be heard to reopen the same before this Court. 14. FINALLY, a judgment reported at 1990(3) SCC 436 (Jute Corpn. of India Officers' Assn. v. Jute Corpn. To repeat, the matter has attained finality and the Corporation or the appellants can no longer be heard to reopen the same before this Court. 14. FINALLY, a judgment reported at 1990(3) SCC 436 (Jute Corpn. of India Officers' Assn. v. Jute Corpn. of India Ltd.) is placed to demonstrate that members of cadres entitled to industrial dearness allowance could not be equated with members of cadres entitled to Central dearness allowance. At paragraph 7 of the report the Supreme Court issued certain directions, the first three of which appear to be of some relevance: "(i) The scales of pay and dearness allowance as recommended in the Report will be extended to those employees who have been appointed with specific terms and conditions for grant of Central dearness allowance. This will be equally applicable to the employees who by rules laid down by the public sector enterprises are being paid Central dearness allowance. (ii) The employees appointed on or after January, 1, 1989, will be governed by such pay scales and allowances as may be decided by the government in its discretion. Those appointed earlier with IDA pattern will continue to be governed in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment. (iii) The pay revision for those employees in respect of whom the recommendations are hereby being directed to be implemented hereafter, will take place only as and when similar changes are effected for the Central Government employees. These employees will, however, continue to enjoy the option to switch over to the IDA pattern of the scales of pay etc. on a voluntary basis." Such Supreme Court judgment is referred to in the order dated September 15, 2000 and also in the order dated October 15, 2001. Upon noticing such judgment, the order dated October 15, 2001 provided that the employees of the Corporation had similar responsibilities as Central government employees in the forest department and there was no justification in refusing the benefits of the new pay scales to the employees of the Corporation on the ground of minor distinction in their service conditions. Such order of October 15, 2001 has been upheld in appeal with the Corporation being directed to consider the matter by taking into account the observation made in the order of October 15, 2001. Such order of October 15, 2001 has been upheld in appeal with the Corporation being directed to consider the matter by taking into account the observation made in the order of October 15, 2001. The subsequent Division Bench order of November 24, 2005 permitted the Corporation to refuse the enhanced benefits if there were other grounds therefor. The Corporation's refusal of January 3, 2006 was found to repeat the grounds that had already been urged in Court and had been frowned upon. The order of March 28, 2007 required the upgraded pay scales to be offered to the petitioners in those proceedings. Such order has been upheld in appeal and the petition for special leave to appeal therefrom stood dismissed. There is, therefore, no further scope to re-appreciate the entire matter on the strength of the Jute Corporation of India claim. 15. IT is the appellants' case that only six of the 47 writ petitioners stand on a different footing on account of such petitioners having drawn scales of pay under the industrial dearness allowance pattern pay structure. The appellants say that the employees under the industrial dearness allowance pattern obtained additional benefits than those under the Central dearness allowance pattern. However, the extent of the additional benefits obtained by such six writ petitioners is not indicated. 16. IT would be anomalous to provide that certain employees of the same Corporation be treated as government servants and obtain the benefit of the Fifth Pay Commission Report and certain others be treated otherwise and not be conferred similar benefits. In any event in the order dated October 15, 2001 such point about the petitioners therein having obtained certain additional benefits not available to Central Government employees was noticed and yet the petitioners therein were found to be at par with Central government employees, despite the Jute Corporation of lndiacase being cited. There is no merit, in the circumstances, in the third count of challenge launched by the appellants. Mat 029 of 2008 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with requisite formalities. Appeal dismissed