JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The following prayer has been made by the present nine petitioners : (A) A writ of mandamus or in nature thereof commanding/directing- "(i) The Respondent D.V.C to pay equal pay and benefits for equal work to the petitioners, who are Canteen employees, working as such since June 1979 or thereafter, at Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura of D.V.C which is since been run/controlled/managed by H.R.D Department of CTPS, since 27.03.1998. The rate of said payments should be at per with Canteen Employees of Durgapur Thermal Power Station of D.V.C and should also be in view of decision of competent authority i.e. State of Jharkhand as contained in Annexure-4/A and 5 taken in pursuance of the directions of this Hon''ble Court as contained in Annexures-2 and 3. The said benefits have to be paid with effect from the date of the decision of the State Government dated 27.12.2003 and dated 27.01.2004 and should be with interest; (ii) The Respondent D.V.C to make the petitioners permanent canteen employees at CTPS, Chandrapura as decided and ordered by the competent authority i.e. the State Government on 27.12.2003 (Annexure 4/C) and on 27.01.2004 (Annexure-5) in pursuance of orders and direction of this Hon''ble Court dated 15.06.2001 (Annexure-2) and 06.05.2003(Annexure-3). (B) A writ of mandamus or in nature thereof commanding/directing the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to take all coercive actions against the Respondent D.V.C and its officers for getting its orders as contained in Memo No. 810 dated 27.12.2003 (Annexure-4/C) and Memo No. 143 dated 27.01.2004 (Annexure-5) complied within time fixed as they have been passed in pursuance of the orders of this Hon''ble Court (Annexures-2 & 3). OR In alternative to suo moto start a proceeding of contempt against the concerned Officers of D.V.C. (C) A writ of certiorari or in nature thereof for quashing/cancelling/rescinding the decision/order of the Respondent D.V.C contained in letter No. 6163 dated 03.01.2006 (Annexure-7). AND/OR be pleased to issue any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s)/rules(s) in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of Justice." 3. Counsel for the petitioners for the present does not press the prayer No. 1(B) or (C). 4. Petitioners were working as Canteen Employees under Chandrapura Thermal Power Station of Respondent D.V.C as per the details containing date of joining, post/designation etc. furnished at para 4. Counsel for the petitioners for the present does not press the prayer No. 1(B) or (C). 4. Petitioners were working as Canteen Employees under Chandrapura Thermal Power Station of Respondent D.V.C as per the details containing date of joining, post/designation etc. furnished at para 4. It is the case of the petitioners that Chandrapura Thermal Power Station (for short ''CTPS'') is one of the four Units of Damodar Valley Corporation) (for short ''D.V.C''), where petitioners were engaged through Contractor initially to run the Canteen. After the Contractor left running the Canteen in the year 1997-98, D.V.C and C.T.P.S started running the Canteen departmentally under the supervision of Human Resources Development Department. Canteen Management Committee is running the Canteen under overall supervision of H.R.D Department of C.T.P.S. According to the petitioners, a tripartite settlement was arrived at between the then Canteen Contractor Mr. O.P. Sharma of C.T.P.S, D.V.C, Chandrapura and the Canteen Employees regarding payments and facilities on 9th August, 1980, to the effect that the same benefits be given to Canteen Employees of C.T.P.S as accorded to the Canteen Employees of Durgapur Thermal Power Station (for short ''DTPS). Government of West Bengal abolished employment of contract labour vide notification dated 22nd December, 1995 in the Canteen at D.T.P.S under DVC. Challenge to abolition notification on behalf of D.V.C failed and ultimately Canteen Employees of D.T.P.S were provided regular employment in the year 1997. These petitioners and some others also raised a similar demand before the respondent. On failure to seek redressal of their grievances, they approached Patna High Court in C.W.J.C No. 3096 of 1999(R) i.e., Murli Gope and 24 others v. Damodar Valley Corporation & others . The said writ petition was disposed of with certain observations and directions by judgment dated 15th June, 2001, operative portion of which is quoted hereunder: "10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the competent authority i.e. the Central Government with direction to the Central Government to decide the dispute on receipt of such application(s) and verification of all relevant materials. 11. The competent authority i.e. the Central Government shall proceed strictly in accordance with law and make endeavour to finalise the matter, as quickly as possible, preferably within a period of six months. 12. 11. The competent authority i.e. the Central Government shall proceed strictly in accordance with law and make endeavour to finalise the matter, as quickly as possible, preferably within a period of six months. 12. If any such application is preferred by the petitioners along a copy of this judgment within three weeks, the authorities will maintain status quo so far as continuance of employment in the Canteen concerned, till final decision is taken in one or or other way by the competent authority. However, such maintenance of status quo with regard to continuance of employment will be subject to any penal action, as may be required to be taken against one or other workman. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions. There shall be, however, no order as to costs." 5. Thereafter, the matter remained unresolved. In between, the State Government was held to be the appropriate government in view of the order dated 6th May, 2003 passed in C.M.P No. 128 of 2003(Annexure-3) by the same learned Single Judge of this Court. Petitioners through their Union represented before Government of Jharkhand for redressal of their grievances seeking regularization or at least equal pay for equal work. The Joint Labour Commissioner heard the representative of the petitioners as well as that of D.V.C and directed the Respondent D.V.C to make payment to the petitioners at the same rate in terms of Rule 252(v) of Central Rules framed under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The decision of Respondent Labour Commissioner was not complied with by the Respondent D.V.C in spite of several requests of the petitioners. 6. Representation was made before respondent Labour Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand to take appropriate action against noncompliance of this order contained in Memo No. 143 dated 27th January, 2004 (Annexure-5). Thereafter, petitioners approached this Court in the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer including other reliefs incorporated at para 1 of the writ petition. 7. Petitioners have in the aforesaid factual background now relied upon the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 13766 of 2015, Murli Gope and Ors. v. Damodar Valley Corporation and ors. (Annexure-12 of I.A. No. 6707 of 2015), where-under the Hon''ble Supreme Court has directed that all the appellants shall be regularized as Canteen workers with effect from 1st October, 2008. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. v. Damodar Valley Corporation and ors. (Annexure-12 of I.A. No. 6707 of 2015), where-under the Hon''ble Supreme Court has directed that all the appellants shall be regularized as Canteen workers with effect from 1st October, 2008. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. It was also clarified that the order was being passed in the peculiar facts of the case. It would be appropriate to mention here that the instant Civil Appeal arose out of the judgment passed by this Court dated 11th July, 2013 in W.P.(L) No. 5905 of 2010, Murli Gope & Ors. v. Damodar Valley Corporation and others analogous with Contempt Case (Civil) No. 977 of 2012 . The said writ petition was preferred by twelve petitioners, who also sought issuance of a mandamus upon the Respondents D.V.C and its official to grant equal pay and benefits at par with the Canteen Employees of D.T.P.S. They also sought a direction upon the respondents to treat them as permanent Canteen Employees of C.T.P.S in view of the decision of the competent authority of Government of Jharkhand dated 27th December, 2003 and 27th January, 2004 (Annexures-4/A and 5 to the present writ application). 8. Counsel for the petitioners has categorically submitted that petitioners, Murli Gope & others were also petitioners in C.W.J.C No. 3096 of 1999 (Murli Gope & ors. v. Damodar Valley Corporation and others), which was disposed of by judgment dated 15th June, 2002 (Annexure-2 of the writ petition), extracts of which has been quoted here-in-above. This Court vide judgment dated 11th July, 2013, however, dismissed the writ petition with observation that petitioners may have an alternative remedy, if they so choose, to seek redressal of their grievances; operative portion of the said judgment passed in W.P. (L) No. 5905 of 2010 (Annexure-13 to I.A. No. 6707 of 2015) is quoted hereunder: "19. In the aforesaid background of law well settled and reiterated time and again and also in the background of the present case, the petitioners'' could seek issuance of a notification under Section 10(1) of the Act of 1970 by moving appropriate Government. In such circumstances, the appropriate Government would have to proceed to issue such notification or refuse to do so after following the procedure law under the Act of 1970 through the committee and the advisory Board constituted for the said purpose. In such circumstances, the appropriate Government would have to proceed to issue such notification or refuse to do so after following the procedure law under the Act of 1970 through the committee and the advisory Board constituted for the said purpose. If such a situation was not warranted, the petitioners may have a remedy by raising an industrial dispute and seek reference from the appropriate Government before the industrial adjudicator for regularization of their serves on the terms and the facts and circumstances on which they rely. In such disputed questions of fact relating to the parties, more so when these petitioners had neither initially been appointed by the respondents or were subsequently engaged by the respondents on a permanent basis against vacant sanctioned posts. in the writ jurisdiction, this Court should not exercise its discretionary power to direct their regularization or even direct the respondents to pay salary at par with the regularly engaged employees. 20. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners may have an alternative remedy, if they so choose, to seek redressal of their grievances in accordance with law. The Contempt Case No. 977 of 2012 is also accordingly dismissed and the proceedings are dropped." 9. Petitioner, Murli Gope & others preferred L.P.A No. 285 of 2013 before Division Bench of this Court, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 31st March, 2015. That is how the matter was taken up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21541 of 2015. Upon leave being granted Civil Appeal No. 13766 of 2015 was disposed of by judgment dated 23rd November, 2015 in the following terms: "Leave granted. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, we direct that all the appellants shall be regularized as canteen workers w.e.f. 01.10.2008. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. We may clarify that the order is passed in the peculiar facts of the case." 10. The present writ petitioners relying upon the direction passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 13766 of 2015 sought similar relief through I.A. No. 6707 of 2015. This has been resisted by Respondent-D.V.C through reply as well. Respondent-D.V.C had earlier filed counter affidavit to the main writ petition contesting the claim of present petitioners. The present writ petitioners relying upon the direction passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 13766 of 2015 sought similar relief through I.A. No. 6707 of 2015. This has been resisted by Respondent-D.V.C through reply as well. Respondent-D.V.C had earlier filed counter affidavit to the main writ petition contesting the claim of present petitioners. According to them, petitioners were getting more than minimum wages as per notification of the Labour Department, Government of India under section 12 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As per the respondents, the Canteen staffs of D.T.P.S were taken as a regular employee on abolition of contract system by notification dated 22nd December, 1995 by State of West Bengal. They have been regularized during 1997 to 2001 and being direct employees of D.T.P.S are governed by the specific service condition. They cannot be equated with the present petitioners, who are working as Canteen workers under the Contractor at C.T.P.S which is totally a different establishment. The appropriate government is State of Jharkhand, who has not issued any prohibition notification. It is a statutory obligation of Respondent D.V.C to run the Canteen at C.T.P.S on the basis of no profit no loss in terms of section 46 of Factories Act, 1948. There is no provision under the Act of 1948 for running the factory Canteen by the permanent employees of the occupier. The Contractor, O.P. Sharma, who was running the Canteen had closed it on 17th February, 1998 without any notice. Upon representation made by workman, who has been working under the Contractor, the Chief Engineer, C.T.P.S informed the Director, (H.R.D) D.V.C, Kolkata through letter dated 18th April, 1998 that Managing Committee of seven persons including four persons representing the staff Association and a Karmchari Sangh was constituted. It was decided that Managing Committee will retain erstwhile workers of the Contractor, O.P. Sharma. As per the statement made at paragraph 11(d) of counter affidavit dated 9th July, 2012, 26 workmen who were working in C.T.P.S Canteen have authorized four workers as per the meeting held on 24th March, 1998 to work as Coordinators to manage day to day work of CTPS Canteen as well as the canteen liaising job with the management. The Director (HRD) DVC Kolkata vide letter dated 5th May, 1998 approved the arrangement for running the Canteen by the then existing Contractor workers. The Director (HRD) DVC Kolkata vide letter dated 5th May, 1998 approved the arrangement for running the Canteen by the then existing Contractor workers. That is how erstwhile contractor workers of the Canteen are continuing to run the Canteen on the basis of arrangements arrived at between the management and the canteen workers. From time to time, some allowances and increments in their account were paid to those workers as arrived between the management and workers. Till December, 2008 payments were made in cash but from January, 2009 payment was made through Bank Account to the workers. According to the respondents D.V.C management has never violated section 12 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 section 33 of I.D Act, 1947, Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. They contended that direction of Hon''ble High Court passed in C.W.J.C No. 3069/1999(R) read with order dated 6th May, 2003 passed in C.M.P. No. 128/2003 would prevail over the direction of Labour Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand. The Respondent D.V.C has further stated in their counter affidavit that the direction dated 5th November, 2003 by Joint Labour Commissioner are not tenable in law as well as on fact. The canteens are different and the appropriate government are also different; occupiers of the two factories canteen are different and so are the person responsible for supervision and control of the two establishment. Therefore, the case of the present petitioners are not comparable with the canteen staff of D.T.P.S. No such notification has either been issued by Government of Jharkhand in terms of Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. 11. In reply to the Interlocutory Application No. 6707 of 2015, respondent-D.V.C has reiterated its stand taken earlier and also submitted that the direction passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 13766 of 2015 shall apply to the petitioners, who had moved before Hon''ble Supreme Court and no one else as the orders were passed in the peculiar facts of the case. The present petitioners cannot take advantage of the judgment passed in the said civil appeal. The other averments are reiteration of facts and grounds taken in the counter affidavit of the respondents filed on 9th July, 2012. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, Mr. The present petitioners cannot take advantage of the judgment passed in the said civil appeal. The other averments are reiteration of facts and grounds taken in the counter affidavit of the respondents filed on 9th July, 2012. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, Mr. R.N. Sahay submits that the petitioners, Murli Gope and others have lost before learned Single Judge as also before learned Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the direction passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the peculiar facts of the case, cannot be taken advantage of by the present petitioners. 13. On consideration of the entire background facts narrated in some detail here-in-above, it now falls for determination as to whether the respondent-D.V.C should be directed to take a afresh decision in the light of the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Murli Gope and others or not. The underlying basis to ask the respondent to do so is that these petitioners, Murli Gope and others, all were engaged as Canteen workers under the same C.T.P.S through the Contractor, O.P. Sharma at the relevant point of time. These two sets of petitioners had jointly approached the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 3096 of 1999 for providing facility as given to the Canteen employees of D.T.P.S with additional prayer to abolish system of contract labour in the canteen at C.T.P.S. After the decision rendered in CWJC No. 3096 of 1999 and CMP No. 128 of 2003, the matter was considered by the Labour Commissioner, Jharkhand in the presence of representative of the Canteen workers, management representative in the meeting held on 6th January, 2004. The Labour Commissioner, Jharkhand vide Memo No. 143 dated 27th January, 2004 directed the management of DVC (Annexure-5) to grant scale of pay equivalent to that of Group-D to Canteen workers of C.T.P.S and also regularize them in service. Murli Gope and others thereafter approached this Court in WP.(L) No. 5095 of 2010 seeking equal pay for equal work and the status of permanent employees and the present petitioners also approached this Court in the instant writ petition separately for the same relief. The grievance raised by the writ petitioners, Murli Gope and others, travelled up to Hon''ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has by judgment dated 23rd November, 2015 directed that the appellants be regularized as Canteen workers with effect from 1st October, 2008. The grievance raised by the writ petitioners, Murli Gope and others, travelled up to Hon''ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has by judgment dated 23rd November, 2015 directed that the appellants be regularized as Canteen workers with effect from 1st October, 2008. However, It was also clarified that the order is passed in the peculiar facts of the case. 14. This Court is conscious that such a direction has been issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the peculiar facts of the case. However, in the background facts noted here-in-above when the common grievance has been raised by the two sets of petitioners, Murli Gope and others and present petitioner which have a common genesis, respondent D.V.C is required to take a fresh a decision as to why similar benefits should not be granted to the present petitioners. Respondent D.V.C being an instrumentality of the State has to act like a model employer and unless there are clear distinguishing features in the case of the present petitioners from that of Murli Gope and others, there is no reason why a different stand be taken in the case of the present petitioners. Even after taking note of the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for Respondent D.V.C on the grounds of dismissal of writ petition No. 5905 of 2010 and also LPA No. 285 of 2013, once a direction has been issued by Hon''ble Supreme Court to regularize the appellants, Murli Gope and others in Civil Appeal No. 13766 of 2015, Respondent DVC is obliged in law to take a fresh decision as to whether the case of the present petitioners stands on similar footing and are entitled to the same reliefs or not. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to respondent D.V.C to take a fresh decision in the matter within a reasonable time preferably 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, I.A. No. 6707 of 2015 also stands disposed of.