JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 5. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as well as Mr. P. Nayak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6. 2. The facts in both the writ petitions being similar and the question of law involved are paramateria, both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. 3. The issue involved in the writ petition filed at a later point of time pertains to as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to the revision of pay in terms with the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 as well as other benefits as claimed in the writ petitions. It further transpires from a perusal of the writ petition registered as WP (C) No. 807/2013 that it is the case of the petitioners that in terms with the Wage Board’s recommendation, the age of the superannuation was 60 years and also as per the Government of Assam’s Office Memorandum dated 25.01.2005, the age of retirement of Grade-IV employees was 60 years whereas the retirement age all other employees was enhanced from 58 to 59 years. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioners herein that while settling the VRS entitlement of the petitioners, they have been deprived on the basis of not calculating their entitlement in terms with the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 as well as not calculating their age of retirement as 59 years or 60 years as the case may be for Grade-III and Grade-IV employees respectively. 4. At this stage, it may be relevant herein to mention that the petitioners in WP (C) No. 807/2013, sought for the relief for recalculating the retirement benefits by giving up-to-date revision of pay as per the Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 and taking the age of superannuation as 60 years to the petitioners and to pay them all further benefits consequent thereto. 5. This Court has made a specific query upon the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why two writ petitions were filed by the same set of writ petitioners except the few who have been left out in the second litigation. 5. This Court has made a specific query upon the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why two writ petitions were filed by the same set of writ petitioners except the few who have been left out in the second litigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the second writ petition, the claim of the petitioners is on the basis of calculation of VRS benefits in terms with the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 and also as certain claims pertaining to Medical Allowances and House Rent Allowances were left out in the earlier writ petition, the same have been claimed in the writ petition filed at a later point of time. 6. Let this Court first take into consideration as to the entitlement of the petitioners in terms with the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010. The petitioners herein admittedly were employed in a public undertaking of the Government of Assam. It is relevant to take note of that on 04.02.2010, a notification was issued by the Government of Assam, Finance (PRU) Department thereby notifying the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2010’). Although in terms with Rule 1(b) of the said Rules of 2010, it was brought into effect on 01.01.2006, but in terms with the Rule 2 (b) (v), it was categorically mentioned that unless specifically extended under express order of the Government, the Rules of 2010 shall not apply to officers and staff of public undertaking of the Government of Assam. A perusal of Annexure-12 in WP (C) No. 6027/2022 shows that it was only vide the communication dated 26.09.2012, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Industries and Commerce Department had informed the Managing Director of the Assam Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC) Ltd., the decision of the Government in the Industries and Commerce Department’s approval to the proposal for revision of pay of the employees of AIDC Ltd. as per the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010. From a perusal of the said document, however, it does not appear as to whether the Rules of 2010 was extended to the Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. w.e.f. 01.01.2006 or such other date other than 26.09.2012. From a perusal of the said document, however, it does not appear as to whether the Rules of 2010 was extended to the Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. w.e.f. 01.01.2006 or such other date other than 26.09.2012. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 2(b) (v) of the Rules, 2010 and upon a perusal of the communication dated 26.09.2012, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the petitioners herein cannot claim their re-computation of their VRS entitlement on the basis of the Rules of 2010 as the petitioners were not in service as on 26.09.2012. 7. Now coming to the question as regards the entitlement of the petitioners on the basis of the Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 as claimed in WP (C) No. 807/2013. In the said writ petition, an affidavit has been filed by the Managing Director of Cachar Sugar Mill who have been impleaded as Respondent No. 3. A perusal of the said affidavit disclose that there were two categories of permanent employees in Cachar Sugar Mill. One group consists of 22 employees and had accepted the State Government/AIDC Ltd. pay scale and the other consists of 122 employees who have accepted Sugar Wages Board’s pay scale. It was further mentioned that the Management of the Cachar Sugar Mill followed both the revision of pay scale of Government of Assam as per ROP 1998 and the 3rd Sugar Wages Board carefully and dues were calculated as per ROP 1998 in respect to those employees who accepted the State Government/AIDC Ltd. pay scale and the 3rd Wages Board Scale in respect to those employees who accepted the Sugar Wages Board’s pay scale. It was further mentioned that after calculation of the arrear salaries, gratuity, VRS etc., the same were submitted before the Government for approval and the release of the fund. Thereafter, due payments were made to the employees including the petitioners after release of the fund by the Government and while receiving the benefits, the petitioners/employees inter-alia submitted individual undertakings to the Respondent No. 2 to the effect that they have no further claim on any account whatsoever. It has further been mentioned that the dues including arrear salary, gratuity, leave salaries, VRS benefits were calculated upto 31.03.2007 as per the closure Notice dated 27.04.2007, and accordingly, the notice was duly published and payments were released. It has further been mentioned that the dues including arrear salary, gratuity, leave salaries, VRS benefits were calculated upto 31.03.2007 as per the closure Notice dated 27.04.2007, and accordingly, the notice was duly published and payments were released. Therefore, the payment of arrear salaries till the year 2009 did not arise. In paragraph No. 6 of the said affidavit, it has been further mentioned that the pay scale for the employees under the Central Sugar Board pay have not been considered as no revision was made in 1998 under the Central Sugar Wages Board as per records available with them. 8. At this stage, if this Court takes note of the documents enclosed to the writ petition, more particularly Annexure-4 in WP (C) No. 807/2013, it is seen that the petitioners have claimed on the basis of the report of the 3rd Central Wages Board of Sugar Industries dated 31.01.1989. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere or issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to recompute the VRS entitlement in view of the specific stand taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the affidavit to the effect that some of the employees who had accepted the pay scale of AIDC Ltd., their entitlement were calculated on the basis of the revision made in the year 1998 by the State of Assam and those employees who had accepted the Central Wages Board’s pay scale were also granted the benefits in terms with the 3rd Sugar Wages Board’s recommendations. 9. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to mention that this Court made a query upon the learned counsels for the petitioners as well as the respondents as to why two different pay scales were adopted for the VRS entitlement in as much as a set of 22 employees received the VRS entitlement on the basis of the Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 and 122 employees received the VRS entitlement on the basis of Wage Board recommendation. It was submitted at the Bar that the employees were given the option to choose the pay scale under the AIDC or the Wage Board and those employees who choose the Wage Board recommendation were given the pay scale as per Wage Board and those who choose the AIDC pay scale were given the Pay Scale applicable to AIDC. It was submitted at the Bar that the employees were given the option to choose the pay scale under the AIDC or the Wage Board and those employees who choose the Wage Board recommendation were given the pay scale as per Wage Board and those who choose the AIDC pay scale were given the Pay Scale applicable to AIDC. It was further submitted that at no point, the petitioners herein raised the issue claiming the AIDC pay scale and after having received the VRS entitlement without demurrer have now claimed the Revision of Pay, 1998. This Court is of the opinion that in the present facts as the petitioners had duly opted for the pay scale under the Wage Board recommendation and having enjoyed the same throughout their service career now cannot raise the claim as per the Revision of Pay, 1998 that too after accepting the VRS entitlement with demurrer in the year 2007. 10. Now the next question, therefore, arises as regards the entitlement of the petitioners for computation of their VRS entitlement by taking 60 years as the date of superannuation. Taking into account that it is an admitted stand taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the affidavit that the computation of the entitlement of the petitioners were made on the basis of age of superannuation at 58 years, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in terms with the 3rd Sugar Wages Board’s recommendations, and more particularly at Clause 18, it has been categorically mentioned that the age of superannuation is fixed at 60 years which was duly accepted by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that this aspect of the matter is further clear from the affidavit wherein also they accepted that they have paid salaries or calculated their entitlement on the basis of the 3rd Wages Board’s recommendations. The learned counsel for the petitioners further drawing the attention of this Court to the Office Memorandum dated 25.01.2005 of the Government of Assam to the effect that the age of superannuation was increased from 58 to 59 years w.e.f. 01.01.2005 in respect to all other employees and in respect to Grade- IV, the age of superannuation was 60 years. The learned counsel for the petitioners further drawing the attention of this Court to the Office Memorandum dated 25.01.2005 of the Government of Assam to the effect that the age of superannuation was increased from 58 to 59 years w.e.f. 01.01.2005 in respect to all other employees and in respect to Grade- IV, the age of superannuation was 60 years. It is, therefore, the stand of the petitioners herein that that the entitlement of the petitioners should be taken into consideration by taking into account the age at 59 years, if those employees were Grade-III employees and 60 years if those employees were Grade-IV employees. 11. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents, this Court is also of the opinion that taking into account Clause 18 of the 3rd Wages Board’s recommendations which categorically stipulates that the superannuation age to be 60 years as well as the Office Memorandum of the Government of Assam which stipulates for Grade-IV employees’ retirement age to be 60 years and for other employees to be 59 years, the petitioners have been able to make out a case for re-computation of their entitlement by taking into account their age to be 59 years and/or 60 years as the case may be depending on whether they were Grade-III of Grade-IV employees respectively. This, however, would require a verification to be made by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in WP (C) No. 807/2013. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that this Court while dealing with the same VRS scheme, i.e. in the case of Asom Rajyik Bastra Nigam Karmachari Santha and Another vs. State of Assam and Others in WP (C) No. 2633/2014 vide judgment and order dated 05.01.2023 had observes that the similarly situated persons like the petitioners would be entitled to Medical Allowances as well as House Rent Allowances as the part of their salaries for computation of the VRS entitlement. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents, more particularly, the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 have also submitted that this Court along with other Coordinate Benches had also held that the Medical Allowances as well as House Rent Allowances to be a part of the salary while computing the entitlement. 14. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents, more particularly, the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 have also submitted that this Court along with other Coordinate Benches had also held that the Medical Allowances as well as House Rent Allowances to be a part of the salary while computing the entitlement. 14. In that view of the matter, this Court taking into account the judgment and order dated 05.01.2023 in the case of Asom Rajyik Bastra Nigam Karmachari Santha and Another (supra) further observes that while computing the salaries of the petitioners, the Medical Allowances as well as House Rent Allowances shall also be taken into consideration. 15. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The petitioners are not entitled to claim their entitlement on the basis of the Assam Services (ROP) Rules, 2010. (ii) The petitioners are entitled to the re-computation of their VRS entitlement by taking into account the age of superannuation to be 59 years for Grade-III employees and 60 years for Grade-IV employees and in that regard the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 shall make necessary verification to that effect and re-compute the same within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of submission of a certified copy of the instant judgment and order. (iii) The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are further directed to re compute the entitlement of the petitioners on the basis of their salaries by taking note that the Medical Allowances as well as House Rent Allowances shall form a part of salary of the petitioners. Such exercise be completed within the period mentioned in clause (ii) herein above. (iv) The petitioners are not entitled to the claim as regards re-computation of their salaries on the basis of the Revision of Pay of 1998 other than what have already been given to them as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as already mentioned herein above. 16. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to impose costs.