JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. K. Kalita, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Sarma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners herein who are in total 145 are retired employees of the respondent No.1. It is the case of the petitioners that a settlement took place between the employees of the respondent No.1 and the Management in the year 2003 relating to the wage payable. The said settlement expired on 31.12.2006. After the expiry of the said settlement, another settlement was arrived on 20.09.2011 w.e.f. 01.01.2007. However, this settlement was not implemented. On 05.04.2013, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers issued a communication to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent No.1 in relation to pay revision of the employees of the respondent No.1. In terms with the said letter, it was informed that the Competent Authority had conveyed the approval for increase in the pay of regular employees by a fixed amount equal to 20% of the Basic and DA of the individual on the existing scale as on 01.01.2007 payable w.e.f. 01.01.2010 as per the provisions of Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008. In the said communication dated 05.04.2013, it was categorically mentioned that the fixed amount would not attract Provident Fund and any other allowances and should be strictly in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 wherein besides other instructions, it was specifically laid down that additional financial implication on account of the above increase has to be borne by the Central Public Sector Enterprise (CPSE) concerned from their own resources and no budgetary support would be provided by the Government. 3. 3. Subsequent thereto, on 30.05.2016, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Department of Fertilizers, Government of India had intimated the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent No.1 thereby conveying the approval of the Hon’ble Minister (Chemicals and Fertilizers) for grant of DA, perks, NE allowance and PF on 20% of the Basic Pay as on 01.01.2007 w.e.f 01.06.2015 to all regular employees in lieu of fixed amount of 20% of Basic pay and DA on existing scale w.e.f. 01.01.2010 granted earlier vide the communication dated 05.04.2013 as per the provisions of Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008. It was further mentioned that the financial implications of the account of above increase has to be borne by the Respondent No.1 from their own resources and no budgetary support would be payable by the Government. 4. The petitioners thereupon submitted representations to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent No.1 on 28.07.2016 claiming that they are entitled to the benefit on the basis of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 20.09.2011. 5. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners have received part payment vide the orders dated 05.04.2013 and 13.05.2016 and further as the petitioners have been deprived of their due payment, appropriate writ direction and order is required to be issued. It is relevant to mention that the petitioner at paragraph No.12 of the writ petition specifically pleaded that both the sets of employees who had retired from 2010 to 2015 and who are in service as on 01.06.2016 are entitled to have money due in terms with the settlement dated 20.09.2011. However, the order dated 30.05.2016 indicated that the part payment against the settlement would only be made to the existing employees and it is on the basis thereof, the petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 in so far it was made applicable w.e.f. 01.06.2015 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The relief which was sought for by the petitioners in the instant writ petition is that the impugned order dated 30.05.2016 should be made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2010 and from 01.06.2015. 6. Pursuant to the writ petition being filed, an affidavit-in- opposition was filed by the respondent No.1 wherein it was categorically mentioned that the respondent No.1 is engaged in production of fertilizer and has its production plant along with residential colony for its employees at Namrup. 6. Pursuant to the writ petition being filed, an affidavit-in- opposition was filed by the respondent No.1 wherein it was categorically mentioned that the respondent No.1 is engaged in production of fertilizer and has its production plant along with residential colony for its employees at Namrup. It was mentioned that the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., a Government Company had 4 units which included the Unit at Namrup. The said Company was declared a "Sick Company" as per the orders of the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and the entire Company was directed to be closed. However, at the prayer of the Central Government to continue with the Namrup Unit, BIFR ordered that it can be restructured by the Central Government by developing the unit only after forming a separate Company for the same. Accordingly, a new Government Company, i.e. the respondent No.1 was established w.e.f. 05.04.2002. 7. It was further mentioned that the Department of Fertilizers, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizer, Government of India had authorized the Management of the respondent No.1 to negotiate the wage revision based on 1997 scale of pay. Accordingly, pursuant to the Charter of Demands submitted by the Unions and decision of the Government conveyed vide the communication dated 25.08.2003, the negotiations were held with the Unions in various meetings. Finally, a Memorandum of Understanding was arrived at on 22.09.2003 in respect to the wages, allowance and fringe benefit under 1997 scale. It was further mentioned that the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22.09.2003 was made effective from 01.08.2003 and the same remained in force till 31.12.2006. 8. In the affidavit, it was stated that in the meantime, the Central Government had set up a Pay Revision Committee to recommend revision of pay and allowances for the Board Level and below Board Level Executives and Non-Unionist Supervisors on Central Public Enterprises w.e.f. 01.01.2007 following IDA pattern of pay scales as the last revision of the scale of pay of the above categories of employees were made effective from 01.01.1997 for a period of 10 years and the next pay revision fell due from 01.01.2007. The Government after considering the recommendation of the second Pay Revision Committee has issued an Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 whereby the Government has decided to grant an interim relief as an advance to all the regular employees as on 01.01.2007. The Government after considering the recommendation of the second Pay Revision Committee has issued an Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 whereby the Government has decided to grant an interim relief as an advance to all the regular employees as on 01.01.2007. Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 specifically provided that "the CPSE's which are not able to adopt Revised Pay Scale (2007) may give an increase on the Basic of Pay plus DA drawn in the pre-revised scale as on 01.01.2007, with a uniform lower fitment of 10% or 20% depending upon their affordability with the approval of their Ministry/Department". It was also mentioned in the said Office Memorandum more particularly in Clause No.16 that the additional financial implications on account of pay revision has to be borne by the CPSE concerned from their own resources and no budgetary support will be provided by the Government. 9. It was further stated that after various negotiations, a new Memorandum of Settlement was arrived on 20.09.2011. The Clauses of the agreement was specific that to fulfill the agreement, no budgetary support would be provided by the Government and increased obligation must be internally generated. Further to that it was mentioned that the Memorandum of Settlement dated 20.09.2011 was executed on revision of wages structure w.e.f. 01.01.2007, but due to constant loss incurred by the respondent No.1, the Pay Revision which was supposed to have been revised w.e.f. 01.01.2007 could not be implemented which is also admitted stand of the petitioners at paragraph No.4 of the writ petition. It was further mentioned that the Government of India, Department of Fertilizer by the letter dated 28.06.2012, granted an interim relief as an advance to each employee of respondent No.1 at the rate of 20% of (Basic Pay + DA) as on 01.01.2007 per month starting from June, 2012 and the same was to be adjusted with the final settlement of wage revision under the 2007 pay scale. It was further mentioned in the affidavit that the respondent No.1 Company again approached the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 thereupon issued another order dated 05.04.2013 thereby granting the enhancement in the pay of regular employee by fixed amount equal to 20% of Basic and DA of the individual on the existing scale as on 01.01.2007 payable w.e.f. 01.01.2010 as per the provisions of the Clause 4 of Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008. 10. The respondent No.2 thereupon issued another order dated 05.04.2013 thereby granting the enhancement in the pay of regular employee by fixed amount equal to 20% of Basic and DA of the individual on the existing scale as on 01.01.2007 payable w.e.f. 01.01.2010 as per the provisions of the Clause 4 of Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008. 10. Subsequently thereto, the Government of India vide another order dated 30.05.2016, granted DA, perks and allowance and PF on 20% of Basic Pay as on 01.01.2007 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 to all employees of the respondent No.1 in lieu of fixed amount of equal to 20% of Basic Pay and DA on the existing scale w.e.f. 01.01.2010 as per the provisions of Clause No.4 of the Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008. 11. It was further mentioned that the Central Government in the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers took a conscious decision that benefit of letter dated 30.05.2016 would be granted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The respondent No.1 was bound by the Resolution adopted by the Government of India in the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers and cannot go against the directive given in communication dated 30.05.2016. It was further mentioned that a meeting was held between the respondent No.1 and its Union on 11.06.2016 regarding the implementation of the Order dated 30.05.2016 which has already been annexed with the instant writ petition. 12. It appears from the stand taken by the respondent No.1 in its affidavit that the respondent No.1 had acted on the basis of the instructions so issued by the respondent No.2. 13. The justification as to why the benefit of the communication dated 30.05.2016 was limited w.e.f 01.06.2015 and not from 01.01.2010 can be seen from the justification so given by the respondent No.2 in the affidavit-in-opposition. The respondent No.2 had filed the affidavit-in-opposition on 30.05.2018. It was categorically mentioned that the Union Cabinet in its meeting held on 21.05.2015 has inter alia approved recognition for financial restructuring of the respondent No.1. Accordingly, the Cabinet approved implementation of the 2007 pay scales in respondent No.1 as per DPE guidelines. It was also mentioned that the respondent No.1 could not comply with the Clause No. 3 of DPE guidelines, but it was able to comply with Clause 4 of the DPE guidelines. Therefore, in accordance with the Cabinet approval dated 21.05.2015, the cut-off date was fixed on 01.06.2015 for the implementation of the salary hike. 14. It was also mentioned that the respondent No.1 could not comply with the Clause No. 3 of DPE guidelines, but it was able to comply with Clause 4 of the DPE guidelines. Therefore, in accordance with the Cabinet approval dated 21.05.2015, the cut-off date was fixed on 01.06.2015 for the implementation of the salary hike. 14. The instant writ petition was taken up for hearing on 12.08.2025 when the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that he would limit his submission to the effect that the allowances in so far as the PF contribution is concerned, should be given w.e.f. 01.01.2010 in as much as vide the communication dated 05.04.2013, the respondent No.2 has increased the pay of regular employees by a fixed amount equal to 20% of the Basic and DA on the existing scale as on 01.01.2007 which was made w.e.f. 01.01.2010. On the basis of the said submission, this Court granted liberty to the respondent No.1 to file an affidavit in as much as the said plea was not a part of the pleadings. 15. In pursuance thereto, an additional affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent No.1 wherein amongst others, it was categorically mentioned that the communication dated 05.04.2013 was issued in pursuance to the Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 and more particularly Clause 4 of the said Office Memorandum. It was further mentioned that in the communication dated 05.04.2013, it was specifically stated that there shall be only an increase in the pay of the regular employees by a fixed amount equal to 20% of the Basic and DA of the individual on the existing scale as on 01.01.2007 payable w.e.f. 01.01.2010. It was further mentioned that in the communication dated 05.04.2013 that the said fixed component would not attract PF and any other allowances which should strictly be in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008. 16. It is further seen that the petitioners have also filed an additional affidavit bringing on record the plea made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners before this Court on 12.08.2025. 17. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has duly heard the learned counsel for the parties. 18. 16. It is further seen that the petitioners have also filed an additional affidavit bringing on record the plea made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners before this Court on 12.08.2025. 17. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has duly heard the learned counsel for the parties. 18. From the perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the issue involved in the instant proceedings prior to 12.08.2025 was as to whether the respondent authorities were justified in limiting the benefits conveyed by the communication dated 30.05.2016 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and not from 01.01.2010. 19. The materials on record categorically show that the respondent No.1 was initially a part of the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited and it was established on 05.04.2002 as a Government Company after permitted the separation of the Namrup Unit and formation of the new Company. The fact that the respondent No.1 is running in losses is not in dispute. It is further seen from the Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 that the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprise, Government of India had taken a decision on the implementation of the revised scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2007 in respect to Central Public Sector Enterprise. Clause 3 and Clause 4 of the said Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 being relevant are reproduced herein under:- “3. Affordability for implementation of pay revision - The revised pay scales would be adopted, subject to the condition that the additional outgo by such revision for a period of 12 months should not result in more than a 20% dip in profit before tax (PBT) for the year 2007-08 of a CPSE in respect of executives as well as non-unionised supervisory staff taken together in a CPSE. CPSEs that cannot afford to pay full package can implement with either part PRP or no PRP. These CPSEs may pay the full package subsequently, provided the dip in the profit (PBT) is fully recouped to the original level. 4. The CPSEs, which are not able to adopt revised pay scales (2007), may give an increase on the basic pay plus DA drawn in the pre- revised scale as on 01.01.2007, with a uniform lower fitment of 10% or 20%, depending upon their affordability, with the approval of their Ministry/ Department.” 20. 4. The CPSEs, which are not able to adopt revised pay scales (2007), may give an increase on the basic pay plus DA drawn in the pre- revised scale as on 01.01.2007, with a uniform lower fitment of 10% or 20%, depending upon their affordability, with the approval of their Ministry/ Department.” 20. The above two Clauses show that as to when the implementation of revised pay scale is to be given effect to. 21. It is very pertinent to mention that those Central Public Sector Enterprises who are not in a position to adopt the revised pay scale were given a liberty to increase the Basic Pay + DA drawn in the pre-revised scale as on 01.01.2007 within a uniform lower fitment of 10% to 20% depending upon their affordability with the approval of the Ministry/Department. It is further relevant to take note of Clause 16 of the said Office Memorandum dated 26.11.2008 which mandates that if there is any additional expenditure to financial implication, the same has to be borne by the Central Public Sector Enterprise. 22. The record further reveals that though there was a settlement entered into by and between the employees of the respondent No.1 as well as the Management of the respondent No.1, but, on account of the financial stringency, the said revised scale of pay could not be implemented. The record further reveals that upon repeated approach made by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 conveyed the approval vide a communication dated 28.06.2012 for implementation of interim relief of as an advance to each employee of the Respondent No.1 at the rate of 20% (Basic Pay + DA) as on 01.01.2007 from the month of June, 2012 and the same would be adjusted against the final settlement. Further to that, vide another communication dated 05.04.2013, the increase by a fixed amount equal to 20% of the Basic Pay and DA of the individual on existing scale as on 01.01.2007 was made payable w.e.f. 01.01.2010. In the said communication dated 05.04.2013, it was categorically mentioned that the said fixed component shall not attract PF or any other allowances. 23. In the said communication dated 05.04.2013, it was categorically mentioned that the said fixed component shall not attract PF or any other allowances. 23. The record more particularly the affidavit so filed by the respondent No.2 would show the reason as to why the benefit of the communication dated 30.05.2016 is given effect from 01.06.2015 in as much as it was only on 21.05.2015, the Union Cabinet had taken a decision for financial restructuring of the respondent No.1 and implementation of the 2007 pay scale in respect to the respondent No.1. In other words, till 21.05.2015, the Union Government had not finalized as regards the implementation of the revised scale of pay. Another very important aspect is that the decision to implement the revised scale of pay was taken only after the approval of the Union Cabinet for financial restructuring of the Respondent No.1. 24. Taking into account the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the action on the part of the Respondents herein to implement the directions in the communication dated 30.05.2016 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 cannot be interfered with. 25. Now coming to the question as to whether any directions is called for from this Court directing payment of PF on the enhanced amount w.e.f. 01.01.2010. It is pertinent herein to observe that in the communication dated 05.04.2013, it was categorically mentioned that the entitlement would be the fixed component of 20% of Basic and DA. It was also mentioned that the said increase shall not attract PF or other allowances. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to note that till 21.05.2015, there was no decision taken finally to adopt the revised scale of pay. The decision was only taken by the Union Cabinet on 21.05.2015 that too after giving a go ahead to the financial restructuring of the Respondent No.1. Under such circumstances, all payments made earlier to 01.06.2015 were temporary/interim measures which in the opinion of this Court would not attract the provisions of Section 6 of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Furthermore, the communication dated 05.04.2013 clearly excluded the PF and other allowances. There is no challenge to the same. 26. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed.