JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The present petition is directed against judgment and award dated 30th September, 2004 passed by the Labour Court in Recovery Application No. 11 of 1999, whereby the Labour Court has directed for issuance of recovery certificate of Rs.1,34,728/-. 2. The short facts appear to be that the respondent was working as Head Cashier with the petitioner bank. His services came to be terminated on October 20, 1986. It appears that thereafter, the dispute was raised and the said dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication and there were subsequent litigation. On 25.6.1997, there was direction in the award to reinstate the respondent workman to his original position. The respondent was reinstated in service. However, the grievance on the part of the respondent was that he was working as Head Cashier at the time of termination and therefore, he was required to be reinstated as Head Cashier, whereas, he was actually reinstated as Cashier. The respondent also contended that as the reinstatement with continuity in service was also required to be given, which has not been given. Under the circumstances, for the difference of salary by way of continuity in service as well as for additional special allowance available to the Head Cashier, recovery application was preferred before the Labour Court being Recovery Application No. 11 of 1999. The Labour Court ultimately passed the order for issuance of the recovery certificate of Rs.1,34,728/-. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 3. I have heard Mr. Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rathod, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 4. It appears that as per the award, express continuity in service has not been granted. Therefore, when there is no express continuity in service ordered in the award, it is to be treated as only reinstatement in service to the original post, which has been granted, but not as Head Cashier and as only Cashier. When the aforesaid award dated 25.6.1997 was not under challenge, the respondent could not be entitled to the difference of any salary as if continuity in service was available to him. However, so far as the right to receive special allowance as Head Cashier after reinstatement could be said as already crystallized by the said award, because the direction was for reinstatement to the original post. 5. Mr. However, so far as the right to receive special allowance as Head Cashier after reinstatement could be said as already crystallized by the said award, because the direction was for reinstatement to the original post. 5. Mr. Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that whenever the special allowance is available to the Head Cashier, it is like charge allowance and it would not create any right in favour of the employee of the bank to get the special allowance. In his submission, once the workman was reinstated to the principal position as of cashier-cum-clerk, he cannot claim that he would also be entitled for the special allowance of Head Cashier. 6. In my view, the said contention is ill-founded and runs counter to the settlement produced on record at Annexure B to the Affidavit-in-reply. Clause 2.3 of the settlement reads as under: "2.3 This settlement shall govern: (i) criteria for reckoning seniority for the purpose of assignment of duties attracting special allowances payable on the basis of seniority. (ii) Conditions for ineligibility for receipt of special allowances." 7. The aforesaid shows that the criteria for the purpose of assignment of the duties attracting special allowances payable is on the basis of the seniority. It is undisputed position that the post of Head Cashier was included in the Schedule for the purpose of special allowance and the benefits were conferred pursuant to the said settlement. Therefore, the one, who is senior on the basis of seniority, would be entitled to get the assignment as Head Cashier and consequently, special allowance. It is not in dispute that when the service of the respondent was terminated, he was not working as Head Cashier. Once, he was working as Head Cashier, on account of his seniority at the time of reinstatement, he was required to be posted as Head Cashier, and if not posted, in any case, he would be entitled for the special allowance as Head Cashier. Hence, the claim to that extent included in the recovery application can be said as on the basis of crystallized right, for which the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act could be resorted to. In the present case, there is composite calculation made in the recovery application and more particularly, in the statement attached with the recovery application. Hence, the claim to that extent included in the recovery application can be said as on the basis of crystallized right, for which the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act could be resorted to. In the present case, there is composite calculation made in the recovery application and more particularly, in the statement attached with the recovery application. The total amount of Rs.99,225/- includes the difference of the salary as if the continuity in service is granted and it also includes the additional special allowance available to the Head Cashier. Therefore, the said amount will have to be recalculated in a manner that the benefit claimed on the basis of the continuity in service would be unavailable to the respondent, but special allowance as Head Cashier would be available to the respondent from the date of award until he was regularly posted as Head Cashier. 8. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is modified to the effect that the respondent - original applicant before the Labour Court would be entitled for special allowance as Head Cashier from the date of the award until he is regularly posted as Head Cashier i.e. in 2002. Considering the fact that the amount is not very high, the petitioner bank is directed to make the calculation. The respondent may also furnish the calculation to the bank. The payment of the aforesaid special allowance for the respective period shall be made together with the interest at the rate of 8% per annum till the amount is actually paid and the said amount shall be disbursed by the bank within a period of three months from the receipt of the order of this Court. The petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.