JUDGMENT Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J. 1. Both these writ petitions involving a common question of facts and of law, having heard together, are now being disposed by this common judgment. In W.P. (C) No. 4355 of 2010, the grievance of the petitioner-association is directed against the refusal of the respondent authorities to pay medical allowance (MA), house rent allowance (HRA) and city compensatory allowance (CCA) as the components of their unpaid salaries while accepting the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). In W.P. (C) No. 994 of 2004, the sister association is claiming payment of salary due to its members with effect from 30.4.2006 to the date of their acceptance of VRS, which is in addition to the reliefs claimed in WP(C) No. 4355 of 2010. Though the facts pleaded by the parties are many, it is not necessary to reproduce them all for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, which can be decided on a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that members of the two petitioner-associations are the employees of the erstwhile Assam State Co-operative Marketing & Consumers Federation Limited popularly known as STATFED, which was set up on 9.8.1975 on the re-organization of the erstwhile Assam Co-operative Marketing Society Limited. To cut the long story short, in the year 2004, STATFED was identified as one of the organizations proposed to be closed. The Cooperation Department thereafter prepared the estimated cost of the closure of STATFED at Rs. 196.36 crores. This was sanctioned by the respondent authorities, which released Rs. 7,063.26 lakhs on 21.3.2006 for meeting the initial closure liability. One thing led to another till 15.2.2006, when the Department of Public Enterprise, Government of Assam issued the Revised Policy for VRS which was in super session of the Government Notification dated 20.9.2004. The relevant features of the Scheme are payment of 1. Ex gratia of 15 days (Basic Pay+Dearness Allowance) only against each completed years of service rendered or for the months of service left, whichever is less, 2. Cash payment for unutilized leave for a maximum period of 240 days (basis pay plus dearness allowance only), 3. Balance of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) dues payable as Per Regulation of CPF, (4. Gratuity as per Gratuity Act, 5. Unpaid salary/wages (basic pay plus dearness allowance) up to the date of acceptance of VRS by employee, 6. Savings of Group Insurance Scheme. Balance of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) dues payable as Per Regulation of CPF, (4. Gratuity as per Gratuity Act, 5. Unpaid salary/wages (basic pay plus dearness allowance) up to the date of acceptance of VRS by employee, 6. Savings of Group Insurance Scheme. One of the riders imposed by the Scheme is that in all calculations of the VRS benefits, the basic pay and rate of dearness allowance shall be taken as on the date of application by an employee opting for VRS and the date of closure of the SLPE whichever is applicable and that no request for revision shall be entertained thereafter. Pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 27.2.2006, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Cooperation Department wrote to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Assam on 6.3.2006 directing him to issue a notification for closure/dissolution of the STAFFED by specifying the process of liquidation of the STATFED. 2. It is seen that the Liquidator of the STATFED (respondent 6), while forwarding the proposal for payment of dues like "unpaid Salary" of its employees had included under the heading "unpaid salary" other components like basic pay, dearness allowance, house rent allowance (HRA), medical allowance(MA), city compensatory allowance(CCA), etc. Accordingly, the Department of Cooperation while calculating the liability of STAFED as on 31.3.2006 as reflected in the Cabinet Memorandum under the heading "unpaid salary" had also included other salary components like basic pay, clearness allowance, HRA, MA, (CCA) (wherever applicable), etc. According to the petitioner-association, later on, the said amount had been duly approved by the appropriate authority of the Government including the Department of Finance for disbursal to its employees, which was sanctioned and now under the custody of the Liquidator (respondent 6). However, before disbursal of full and final payment of VRS dues to the employees, the authorities of STATFED deducted HRA, MA, CCA (wherever applicable) from the unpaid salary of the employees. 3. It is contended by the petitioner-association that in the case of retired/resigned/deceased employees of STATFED, they were paid all their dues i.e. HRA, MA and CCA w.e.f. 1.1996 till 31.3.2006 on getting ex post facto approval from the Cabinet for payment of dues against the ROP 1998. 3. It is contended by the petitioner-association that in the case of retired/resigned/deceased employees of STATFED, they were paid all their dues i.e. HRA, MA and CCA w.e.f. 1.1996 till 31.3.2006 on getting ex post facto approval from the Cabinet for payment of dues against the ROP 1998. The contention is that since VRS benefits were released to employees of STATFED on the basis of ROP, 1998, all other employees including members of the petitioner-associations are also equally entitled to HRA, MA, CCA, etc. in terms thereof w.e.f. 1.1.1996 till the closure of the STATFED on 30.4.2006. It is also pointed out by the petitioner-associations that the employees serving in the three branches of STAFED at Dibrugarh, Dhubri and Kokrajahar have also drawn pre-revised scale of pay and were paid those allowances along with their arrears due till the closure of the STATFED. According to the petitioner-associations, disbursement of salaries to the employees of the STATFED was not made centrally from the Head Office of the STATFED at Guwahati. As a result, some employees working at various places received up to date salaries including HRA, MA and CCA till the closure of the STATFED, while many employees serving at various offices of STATFED did not receive their up to date salaries for a period ranging from 50 to 100 months. Aggrieved by this discriminatory treatment, they are initiating this second round of litigation for appropriate relief 4. While opposing the writ petition, the respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7 filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition. Countering these affidavits, the petitioner-association also filed their reply-affidavit, which is followed by another additional affidavit from the respondent No. 7. All these affidavits have been perused by me. The common thread running through the affidavits filed by all the respondents is that though under the ROP, 1998, the benefits of MA, HRA and CCA were given to the employees of the STAFED with effect from 1.1.1996, these benefits were no longer admissible to them after the Revised Policy for VRS came into force on 15.2.2006 by a notification read with the Cabinet Memorandum dated 27.2.2006. This position was reiterated by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department in the minutes of the review meeting held on 26.3.2009 under his chairmanship. This position was reiterated by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department in the minutes of the review meeting held on 26.3.2009 under his chairmanship. Needless to say, it was decided therein that HRA, MA and CCA which were expressly excluded from the purview of the term "unpaid salary" under the Revised VRS Notification dated 15.2.2006 should be deducted from the VRS dues of the members of the petitioner-association. 5. It is also contended by the answering respondents that retired/resigned/deceased employees of STAFED did not fall within the category of beneficiaries of the Revised uniform VRS they were not entitled to ex gratia, which was payable only to the VRS employees. As they were eligible for the usual retirement benefit/service benefits only, they were given the full unpaid salary including all admissible allowances in terms of the decision dated 2.2.2010 of the State Government: there is thus no discrimination against the members of the petitioner-association who do not belong to the same class of those retired/resigned/deceased employees. As for three branches/units viz. Dhubri, Kokrajahar and Dibugarh, they were able to run their business smoothly and were thus able to pay the monthly salaries of their employees in the pre-revised scales of pay in the usual manner up to the date of taking over by the authorised officer of the respondent No. 6 after 14.6.2006 from the income generated in these branches/units. As for conversion of 50% DA on basic pay the notification dated 21.4.2007 of the State Government made it clear that merger of 50% of the basic pay/DA into the dearness pay was allowed in respect of the employees of the profit-making SLPES only: as the STATFED was not a profit-making SLPES, such conversion was not admissible. These are the sum and substance of the case of all the answering respondents. 6. At the outset, Mr. UK Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner-association in the instant writ petition, reminds this Court that the VRS as calculated by including basic pay and dearness allowance only had been paid to the members of the petitioner-association, but the HRA, MA and CCA had not been paid to them. 6. At the outset, Mr. UK Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner-association in the instant writ petition, reminds this Court that the VRS as calculated by including basic pay and dearness allowance only had been paid to the members of the petitioner-association, but the HRA, MA and CCA had not been paid to them. He contends that when members of the petitioners association, during their service tenure, were being paid Basic Pay, Dearness Allowance, MA, HRA and CCCA by way of salary components had they not opted for VRS and had they remained in service, deduction of such allowances from their unpaid salaries along with the VRS cannot be sustained in law. According to the learned counsel, the release of the members of the petitioner-associations under the VRS could not have the effect of depriving them of these allowances, which form their salary components, to which they are otherwise entitled under the ROP, 1998 just because they accepted the VRS. He further submits that the members of the petitioner-association were not released from their service and had continued to work under the STATFED from 30.4.2006 to 23.8.2007 as directed by this Court on 2.3.2007, for which they are entitled to salaries for that period. 7. Mr. B. D. Konwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner-association in WP(C) No. 4355 of 2010, while supporting the submissions of the learned counsel for the other writ petition, submits that both the notification dated 15.2.2006 and the Cabinet Memorandum dated 27.2.2006 as approved by the State Cabinet, having been subsequently superseded by the Cabinet decision dated 23.10.2009 contained in the letter dated 31.10.2009 of Public Enterprise Department, Govt. of Assam (see Annexure-VIII to the reply-affidavit) according ex post facto approval to the grant of the benefit of ROP, 1998 to the closed SLPEs, the embargo imposed by the Finance Department against the members of the petitioner-association from drawing HRA, MA and CCA has been lifted: the members of the petitioner-association cannot now be denied of their legitimate dues. He further submits that the concerned authorities have misconstrued the decision of the State Government in holding that MA, HRA and CCA were not included in the "unpaid salary" under the latest uniform VRS dated 15.2.2006: such construction would defeat the very purpose of formulating the VRS inasmuch as the employees had indisputably remained in the service of the STATFED till 30.4.2006. It must be remembered, according to the learned counsel, that though salaries were not paid to the employees on the due dates, they had to pay for their house rents, medical expenses, etc. from their own pockets. 8. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that since the VRS proposal submitted for the employees of STATFED, who had opted the Scheme, was on the basis of the revised pay under the ROP, 1998, once ex post facto approval was granted by the State Cabinet on 23.10.2009 for disbursal of VRS dues as per ROP, 1998, the need for obtaining the approval of the Government at the time of submission of the proposal for release of the VRS dues is deemed to have been obviated The learned counsel maintains that the notification dated 15.12.2006 does not specifically mention that while calculating "unpaid salary", other indefeasible components like HRA, MA and CCA cannot be taken into account: "unpaid salary" is the legally payable due of employees for rendering their services in the organization in the past. So construed, submits the learned counsel, the term "unpaid salary" cannot possibly mean the benefits being granted under the VRS only ex gratia of 15 days (basic pay + dearness allowance) against service rendered or for the months of service left, whichever is less, can be considered to be a benefit granted under the VRS. He, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to direct the respondent authorities to release the HRA, CCA and MA to the members of the petitioner-associations without further delay. 9. On the other hand, Ms. J. Borah, the learned Government Advocate, supports the impugned decision and submits that when the Revised Policy of VRS, 2006 and the decision of the Review Committee meeting dated 26.3.2009 expressly excluded the benefits of HRA, CCA and MA to the employees of STAFFED opting for VRS, the claim of the petitioner-association to that effect is untenable in law. The effect of such decision cannot be obliterated by a process of interpretation to suit the purpose of the petitioner-associations, submits the learned Government Advocate. Mr. The effect of such decision cannot be obliterated by a process of interpretation to suit the purpose of the petitioner-associations, submits the learned Government Advocate. Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned standing counsel for the Finance Department, endorsing the contention of the learned Government Advocate, contends that the VRS dues are to be disbursed as per the notification dated 15.2.2006, which expressly excluded MA, CCA and HRA for the purpose of calculating the VRS benefits: the Finance Department has released the liabilities of the STAFFED on the basis of the approved Cabinet Memorandum and as per the demand submitted by the Co-operation Department. He points out that the Finance Department has already released a sum of 7,063.26 lakhs and another sum off Rs. 7,665 lakhs for meeting the closure liabilities including VRS dues, arrear salaries, CPF dues, etc. of STATFED employees. He, therefore, submits that the respondents have rightly excluded HRA, CCA and MA from the VRS, which does not call for the interference of this Court. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the rival parties. I have also carefully perused the pleading of the parties and the materials on record. Undoubtedly, under the Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 (ROP, 1998), like every State Government employee, the employees were also entitled to draw (a) Medical Allowance (MA) at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month; (b) House Rent Allowance (HRA) at the rate of 12% of basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs. 1200/- in the case of an employee residing in own house or rented accommodation within the Gauhati Municipal Corporation and at the rate of 10% of basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs. 800/- in the case of an employee residing in own house or rented accommodation in District or Sub-Divisional headquarters and at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent of basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs. 500/- per month in the case not covered by either of the above and (c) City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) at the rates specified thereon. Thus, HRA, MA and CCA are the components of the salary. In supersession of the previous notifications in this field, the Government of Assam in the Public Enterprise Department issued the notification dated 15.2.2006 issuing the Revised Policy on VRS for the employees of State Level Public Level Enterprise (SLPES). Thus, HRA, MA and CCA are the components of the salary. In supersession of the previous notifications in this field, the Government of Assam in the Public Enterprise Department issued the notification dated 15.2.2006 issuing the Revised Policy on VRS for the employees of State Level Public Level Enterprise (SLPES). Clause 1 declares that the package under VRS in all SLPEs in the State irrespective of whether SLPEs are to be closed or revived or whether the SLPEs can afford to discharge the dues of to the employees on account of VRS from their own resource generation, but excluding Assam Electricity Board will comprise of the following: a) Ex-gratia of 15 days pay (Basic + clearness allowance) only against each completed year of service rendered or for the months of service left, whichever is less. b) Cash payment for unutilized leave for a maximum period of 240 days (basic + dearness allowance only). c) Gratuity as per Gratuity Act. d) Unpaid salary/wages (basic pay + dearness allowance) up to the date of acceptance of VRS by the employee. e) Savings of Group Insurance Scheme. (Underlined for emphasis) 11. The bone of contention between the rival parties is on the interpretation of Clause 1(d), namely, the meaning of the terms "unpaid salary/wages (basic pay plus dearness allowance)". Ordinarily, the authorities, by bracketing the words "basic pay" and "dearness allowance" after the terms "unpaid salary/wages" seem to have conveyed the impression that the unpaid salary/wages payable to the employees who have opted for VRS are limited only to basic pay/wages and dearness allowance and has, therefore, expressly and categorically ruled out the payment of HRA, MA and CCA to them. This is the interpretation adopted by the Review Meeting on VRS held on 26.3.2009 under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department. For better appreciation of the controversy, the relevant part of the minutes of the meeting may be reproduced hereunder in extenso: .....On the matter of STATFED, Secretary, Cooperation Department explained that VRS dues could not be disbursed by STATFED due to non-settlement of the issue of payment of VRS dues in revised/pre-revised scale. Secretary of Cooperation Department admitted their mistakes that revision of pay scale of STATFED employees was done without the prior concurrence of Finance Department at the time of submission of closure liabilities for Cabinet approval. Principal Secretary, Finance Department took exception on this matter. Secretary of Cooperation Department admitted their mistakes that revision of pay scale of STATFED employees was done without the prior concurrence of Finance Department at the time of submission of closure liabilities for Cabinet approval. Principal Secretary, Finance Department took exception on this matter. Secretary, Cooperation Department added that some employees of STAFED filed a case in Gauhati High Court for disbursement of VRS due in the revised pay scale. Hon'ble High court vide order dated 09.03.2009 in the case WP(C) No. 994 of 2007 directed the STATFED to release VRS dues in revised pay scale by 31.05.2009, since Finance Department released VRS amount in revised pay scale and also on the statement of the standing counsel of Gauhati High Court, Finance Department that VRS amount was sanctioned by Finance Department in the revised scale of pay, Principal Secretary, Finance advised that the immediate action of the Department (PSU) was to disburse the VRS amount to the concerned PSUs as released by the Finance Department on the basis of the Cabinet approval irrespective of pre-revised or revised pay scale and to furnish utilization certificate to Finance Department for meeting 2nd Tranche condition. Liquidator of STATFED stated that VRS dues of STATFED employees included the medical allowances and house rent. The Principal Secretary. Finance stated that medical allowance and house rent allowance were not allowed in the latest uniform VRS notification dated 15.2.2006 and these should be deducted from the calculation of VRS. (Underlined for emphasis) 12. Thus, in that review meeting, the Principal Secretary, Finance was of the view that HRA and MA were not included in the VRS package and should be deducted therefrom on releasing the amounts payable to the employees of STATFED under the VRS. As already noticed, the employees of STATFED had been allowed to draw HRA, MA and CCA by virtue of the ROP, 1998 as they formed a part of the salary components. Salary is given to an employee as a consideration for the service rendered by him and not for the service to be rendered in the future. In my opinion, the employees had earned their salaries for the services rendered by them prior to their retirement from service in furtherance of the policy of 'golden handshake'. Salary is given to an employee as a consideration for the service rendered by him and not for the service to be rendered in the future. In my opinion, the employees had earned their salaries for the services rendered by them prior to their retirement from service in furtherance of the policy of 'golden handshake'. As the HRA, MA and CCA form a part of and constitute a salary, it is inconceivable that these employees would have bartered away their right to all the components of salary accrued to them under the ROP, 1998 for services already rendered by them. The concept of VRS, as I understand, is conceived in consideration of the employees under the STATFED surrendering their future right to continue in service till they retire from service under normal rules: the provisions of VRS cannot out the benefits of HRA, CCA and MA to which they were otherwise entitled under the ROP, 1998. Moreover, the decision of the State Cabinet dated 23.10.2009 has clarified the position, which runs counter to the view taken by the Finance Department, which must give in to the decision of the highest policy making body of the State. At this stage, it may not be out of place to reproduce below the relevant portion of the letter dated 31.10.2009 of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Enterprise Department addressed to the Principal Secretaries of the concerned Departments: No. P.E. 114/2009/203 Dated Dispur, the 31st October, 2009 To The Principal Secretary/Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Cooperation/Public Works/Agriculture/Industries & Commerce Department. Sub: VRS payment to the employees of closed PSUs. Sir, I am directed to inform you that the Cabinet in the meeting held on 23.10.2009 accorded post facto approval for the revision of the scale of pay on the basis of the Assam Service (ROP) Rules, 1998 to the following four State Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) notified for closure under AGPRMP funded by the Asian Development Bank to facilitate disbursement of VRS, etc. dues to their employees: 1. Assam State Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. (STATFED). 2. Assam Government Construction Corporation Ltd. (AGCC) 3. Assam Agro Industries Development Corporation (AAIDC). 4. Assam Conductors & Tubes Ltd. (ASCON). The post facto revision of VRS etc. dues to their employees: 1. Assam State Cooperative Marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. (STATFED). 2. Assam Government Construction Corporation Ltd. (AGCC) 3. Assam Agro Industries Development Corporation (AAIDC). 4. Assam Conductors & Tubes Ltd. (ASCON). The post facto revision of VRS etc. dues already prepared on the basis of ROP-1998 is final and no more revision of the VRS etc., benefits to the above stated PSUs in future, after regularization/payment of VRS etc., benefits on ROP. 1998 will be entertained and the matter will be closed permanently as decided by the Cabinet. You are requested to instruct the CEOs of the concerned PSUs to obtain receipt from the employees in the format for Receipt-cum-Undertaking already furnished vide OM No. PE. 4/2008/145/dated 15.5.2008 and submit to this department. A copy of the approved Cabinet Memorandum and an extract of the minutes off the Cabinet meeting dated 23.01.2009 are enclosed herewith for reference. Copy encl: As stated. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (H.K. Sharma) Commissioner & Secretary Public Enterprises Department. (Underlined for emphasis) 13. On careful reading of the afore-quoted letter, in my judgment, any doubt possibly remaining with the Finance Department on this score can now be removed from their minds. In the first place, the letter speaks of not "VRS" alone, but it rather speaks of VRS, etc., benefits. Had me letter confined itself to VRS due, it can possibly be argued that the benefits are confined only those specifically mentioned in the Scheme such as unpaid salary/wages (basic pay+dearness allowance only) thereby expressing excluding the HRA, CCA and MA benefits therefrom. If there is still any lingering doubt entertained by the answering respondents, the following words, namely, "The post facto revision of VRS etc. dues already prepared on the basis of ROP-1998 is final" will clear their doubt. Those words can only mean the proposal for payment of VRS inclusive of HRA, MA, CCA already prepared by the Liquidator, which was taken exception of by the Principal Secretary in the Finance Department in the review meeting held on 26.3.2009. As the State Cabinet has accorded its ex post facto approval to the VRS, etc. benefits on the basis of the ROP, 1998, the embargo placed on the payment of HRA, MA and CCA to the members of the petitioner-association is deemed to have been lifted. As the State Cabinet has accorded its ex post facto approval to the VRS, etc. benefits on the basis of the ROP, 1998, the embargo placed on the payment of HRA, MA and CCA to the members of the petitioner-association is deemed to have been lifted. It may also be interesting to note that irrespective of "whether the SLPEs can afford to discharge the dues to the employees on account of VRS from their resource generation", the employees of three branches/units of STATFED, namely, Dhubri, Kokrajhar and Dibrugarh were paid HRA, CCA and MA even though they were able to run their units smoothly and were able to pay the salaries from their resource generation. If the construction placed by the respondent authorities are to be accepted, namely, such payments were not admissible to the employees of those units running smoothly, is to be accepted as correct, then, in terms of Clause 1 of Revised Policy of VRS, the payments of HRA and MA made to the employees of Dhubri, Kokrajhar and Dibrugarh units of STATFED would equally be illegal. In my opinion, the impugned decision of the answering respondents is the result of non-application of mind and arbitrariness. In their anxiety to avoid more financial burdens, which, as now found by me, turn out to be their actual liabilities, they have evidently done gross injustice upon the members of the petitioner-associations. In my opinion, the VRS is formulated for the benefit of the employees and the same is in the nature of welfare legislation. In construing the provisions of such welfare scheme, in my judgment, Courts should adopt what is described as a beneficent rule of construction If two constructions are reasonably possible to be placed on such a provision, it follows that the construction which furthers the policy and object of the scheme and is more beneficial to the employees, has to be preferred. This calls for the interference of this Court. 14. At this stage, I may refer to the additional relief claimed by the sister association, namely, All Assam STATFED Workers Association, in WP(C)No. 994 of 2007. As already noticed, so far as the reliefs claimed by them in respect of HRA, MA and CCA are concerned, my decision in WP(C) No. 43 55 of 2010 should be applied to this case on all fours. As already noticed, so far as the reliefs claimed by them in respect of HRA, MA and CCA are concerned, my decision in WP(C) No. 43 55 of 2010 should be applied to this case on all fours. As for the additional relief i.e. salary claimed by them for the period between 30.4.2006 and 23.8.2007, I am of the view that such claim cannot be granted inasmuch as the answering respondents have seriously disputed the case of the members of the petitioner-association that they have actually rendered their services for the STATFED during that period. True, an interim order had been passed by this Court on 2.3.2007 to the effect that till the next returnable date i.e. 21.3.2007, the petitioners therein should not be released from its rolls. In the first place, on or after 21.3.2007, no order had been passed by this Court extending the interim order. Moreover, there is no unimpeachable evidence to show that the members of the petitioner-association had actually rendered any service to the STATFED, which, in any case, appears to have been dissolved after 14.6.2006 following the cancellation of the registration thereof. Consequently, no relief can be granted in this behalf. The result of the foregoing discussion is that WP(C) No. 4355 of 2010 is allowed. WP(C) No. 994 of 2007 is partly allowed. The decision of the Review Meeting dated 26.3.2009 denying the benefits of House Rent Allowance and Medical Allowance (Annexure-P/30 to WP(C) No. 4355 of 2010) is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to release the House Rent Allowance, Medical Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance to the members of the petitioner-associations of the two writ petitions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this common judgment. No costs.