JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners who are ex-employees of M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd., Khetri Copper Complex. District Jhunihunu (for short "Undertaking") and were appointed during the period 23rd September, 1970-1980 and made permanent in the said undertaking during the period 12th November, 1973, 1.4th March, 1984 s have come up before this court by way of the instant writ petition tinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground inter-alia that the respondent-undertaking had declared its intention to close clown the Dariba Copper Project as a result of exhaustion of most of the Mineral Ore deposits in the mines of the Dariba area wherein the respondent-undertaking had been o earlier carrying on the mining activity & the undertaking had taken the decision that continuance of mining work in the said area was neither practicable nor possible in view of the heavy financial constant involved which the management was unable to bear and consequently a decision was taken by the respondent- undertaking of the closure of the mining activity in the said area and as it is consequence thereof not to absorb the employees working in Dariba Copper Project to other existing units of M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. (Respondent No. 1). 2. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision the General Manager of the undertaking invited applications from the erstwhile employees of Dariba Copper Project for exercising their option for their absorption in other projects of the undertaking of face termination from service. It was enjoined upon all the employees that if they were willing to exercise the said option. they were supposed to submit their applications to the Chief of their project upto 1.3.1993 which was set as a dead-line in this regard. 3. A circular was issued by the General Manager of the undertaking in consequence thereof on 8.2.1993 (Annexure 1). In continuation of the said circular, dated 8.2.1993, another circular, dated 24.2.1993, was issued by the undertaking. the last date for submission of the applications for absorption was also extended from 1.3.1993 to 31.3.1993 (Annexure 2). 4. In pursuance of the above, the petitioners submitted their applications to the Project Manager, Dariba Copper Project, Hindustan Copper Ltd. District Alwar (respondent No. 3), as all of them were willing to be absorbed in suitable project of the undertaking and none of them was willing to get voluntary retirement. 4. In pursuance of the above, the petitioners submitted their applications to the Project Manager, Dariba Copper Project, Hindustan Copper Ltd. District Alwar (respondent No. 3), as all of them were willing to be absorbed in suitable project of the undertaking and none of them was willing to get voluntary retirement. Consequently a decision was taken in this regard by the respondents to the effect that with a view to implement the aforesaid scheme of absorption, those employees who were willing to seek voluntary retirement may exercise their option in pursuance of the scheme notified on 5.4.1993 issued by the Dy. General Manager (P & A) of the undertaking. The scheme was made operative upto 31st May, 1993 and came to be known as Hindustan Copper Ltd. Employees (Voluntary Retirement) Scheme, 1993. Such of the employees who were willing to opt for voluntary retirement, were asked to apply for the same in the prescribed format available in various offices of the undertaking as indicated in the aforesaid notice, dated 5.4.1993, (Annexure 3) and the Personal officer of the Dariba Copper Project had obtained signatures of all the petitioners on the application format and the proforma No. 1 which was published under Rule 5.1 Hindustan Copper Ltd. Employees (Voluntary Retirement) Scheme, t0$)3 (for short the i 'Scheme'). 5. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners were forced to affix their signatures on the prescribed forms as a condition precedent for their absorption in other suitable project of the respondent-undertaking and under compelling circumstances all of them signed the same as they had no other option available to them. They were apprehending that they may not loose their jobs unless they signed the aforesaid formats and it was under these circumstances that they had unwillingly exercised their option for voluntary retirement scheme which was purposely clone by the respondent with a view to mislead them and to entrap them. It has further been contended that the signatures of the petitioners were obtained on different dates during the period April-May, 1993. The petitioners were issued acknowledgement receipts in token of the submission of their applications for seeking voluntary retirement. 6. It has further been contended that the signatures of the petitioners were obtained on different dates during the period April-May, 1993. The petitioners were issued acknowledgement receipts in token of the submission of their applications for seeking voluntary retirement. 6. From the perusal of notice (Annexure 3) issued by the Undertaking on 5 5.4.1993, it is borne out that those employees who were desirous of exercising their options for voluntary retirement were kept in view since once they exercised their options in this regard by submissions of their applications, it will not be open to them later on either to resile or withdraw the same. In other words the options for voluntary retirement once so exercised by the i- petitioners were irrevocable, inasmuch as option once exercised and accepted by the Undertaking could not be withdrawn at the sweet will of the said employees at a later stage. 7. The eligibility criteria for seeking voluntary retirement under the aforesaid scheme as per Rule 5.1 was to the effect that an employee who has completed atleast 50 years of age and as atleast 10 years of continuous service in the company/undertaking was eligible for voluntary retirement. Since all the petitioners had not completed 50 years of age as on the (late when they exercised their options, from the perusal of para 3 of the writ petition it is apparent that the petitioners were in the age group of 41-48 and according to them none had completed 50 years of age at the relevant date when they exercised their options for voluntary retirement under the aforesaid scheme. 8. When the aforesaid fact came to the notice of the petitioners that they had sent the aforesaid application forms under the scheme.. they gave a second thought to the same by applying to the Undertaking that they were rather forced to seek voluntary retirement under the compelling circumstances, since others wise they would have all lost their jobs and would not have been in it position to pull on with their families in the state of unemployment and consequently they requested the Undertaking for cancellation of their options under the scheme for voluntary retirement as the same had been exercised under the mistaken belief of their continuity in service vide Annexures 11-20. Finally left with no other option the petitioners served a legal notice of demand for justice on the respondents on 28.7.1993. Finally left with no other option the petitioners served a legal notice of demand for justice on the respondents on 28.7.1993. On receipt of the said legal notices the Corporation intimated the petitioners that since their options for voluntary retirement had already been accepted by the Undertaking in pursuance of their letters, dated 29.7.1993 by the competent authority and written information in this regard had also been communicated to the petitioners individually, the petitioners will be relieved under the scheme subject to the settlement of their dues. 9. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended at the bar that once the eligibility criteria for seeking voluntary retirement by the employees who were absorbed by the respondent- undertaking in pursuance of the scheme, has been clearly spelt out under Rule 5.1 of the Scheme which stipulates (a) that an employee who has completed atleast 50 years of age., and (b) has completed 50 years of continuous service in the company is eligible to seek voluntary retirement, since the petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as aforesaid, the said scheme was neither binding on them nor it was incumbent on the company/undertaking to have compelled the petitioners to have sought voluntary retirement under the scheme and hence the impugned orders passed by the respondent-undertaking retiring the petitioners on particular date is deemed to he. void and inoperative in the eyes of law being contrary to Rules. 10. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the. petitioner further contended that the scheme of voluntary retirement which was formulated by the respondent- undertaking through notice dated 5.4.1993 was operative upto 31.5.1993 only and thereafter it ceased to be operative or effective. void and inoperative in the eyes of law being contrary to Rules. 10. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the. petitioner further contended that the scheme of voluntary retirement which was formulated by the respondent- undertaking through notice dated 5.4.1993 was operative upto 31.5.1993 only and thereafter it ceased to be operative or effective. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Personal Officer of the company had obtained signatures of the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid scheme by misleading them under the pretext of their continuity in employment of the company; whereas once they had affixed their signatures on the applications in pursuance of the aforesaid scheme it amounted to abject surrender of their options to the company and it amounted to voluntary acceptance of the said scheme, it has further been contended by the learned counsel that it is only on 4.7.1993 when actual facts came to their notice, that the petitioners prayed for cancellation of their applications which amounted to their exercise of their options for voluntary retirement vide Annexures 11 to 20 on the record. Thereafter the respondents informed the petitioners in reply to their legal notice dated 28.7.1993 that since the petitioners had already voluntarily accepted the scheme which had already voluntarily accepted the scheme which had already been accepted by the company, it was not open to the petitioners to resile or withdraw from the same. From the perusal of the pleadings on the record it is evident that the petitioners had all retired from service of the respondent- undertaking pursuant to the aforesaid scheme of voluntary retirement w.e.f. 7.8.1993. From the perusal of the pleadings on the record it is evident that the petitioners had all retired from service of the respondent- undertaking pursuant to the aforesaid scheme of voluntary retirement w.e.f. 7.8.1993. The petitioners however, have controverted the contentions of the respondents on the ground that they did not fulfil the basic eligibility criteria for applicability of the aforesaid scheme on them inasmuch as neither they had completed 50 years of age nor 10 years of requisite service as on the relevant date when they exercised their options for the same under the mistaken belief of continuity of service and hence the same could not be held binding on them.10-A. In reply to show cause notice the respondents while controverting the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners, have contended that each of the petitioners had voluntarily submitted their individual applications for voluntary retirement which was duly signed in presence of the attesting witnesses and once applications have been accepted by the respondent-company, each of the petitioners have separate cause of action and joint writ petition . is not maintainable under Rule 375 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. They have further contended that the writ petition involves disputed question of facts with regard to their submissions of applications for voluntary retirement and hence cannot be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. They have further contended that the respondent-company is not covered under Art. 12 of the Constitution of India being not an instrumentality of the State and the said company is operating with its own funds without any interference by the Government. 11. On the question with regard to the decision taken y the company to get employees working in Dariba Copper project absorbed in other Units of Hindustan Copper Ltd., it has been contended that there was neither any assurance nor any guarantee to the said effect that on the closer of Dariba Copper Project, its surplus employees will be absorbed by the respondent-company.11-A. As regards the scheme of voluntary retirement, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the scheme of voluntary retirement is however a separate scheme and was introduced at a later stage which will be beneficial more to the employees concerned. It was further contended by the learned counsel that when the petitioners submitted their options, the scheme of voluntary retirement was not in force and, therefore, there was no question of willingness of any of the petitioners to seek voluntary retirement. 12. From the perusal of the company's notice dated 5.4.19')3 in pursuance of which the scheme of voluntary retirement was introduced, it is apparent that the validity of the said scheme was operative upto 31.5.1993 only. The operative portion of the said notice reads as under "The employees desirous of applying for voluntary retirement should keep in mind that once the application for voluntary retirement is received, the same cannot he withdrawn. Application containing over-writing or cutting shall not he entertained." 13. From the above it is clear that it was made clear to all the employees of the respondent-undertaking that those who were desirous of applying for voluntary retirement and those who exercised their option in pursuance of the same should keep in view that once the option has been so exercised by submissions of applications and once the same have been accepted by the respondent- undertaking, it shall not be open to the petitioners to withdraw or resile from the same. Hence binding effect of the said scheme is apparent from the perusal of' the above clause which was issued to all concerned with the approval of the. competent authority. Admittedly the petitioners exercised their options within the stipulated period and the acceptance of the same had been done by the respondent- undertaking hence I am of the considered view that though the aforesaid scheme-was operative only for a short period w.e.f. 1.4.1993 to 31.5.1993, but once the petitioners had exercised their options to seek their voluntary retirement in pursuance of the aforesaid scheme and their options having been duly accepted by the respondent-undertaking, it was not open to the petitioner to withdraw from the same under the pretext that they were not aware of either implications of the said scheme or consequence ensuing therefrom, since they had exercised their options with open mind and admittedly all the applications which were submitted by the petitioners were duly verified by atleast two attesting witnesses in token of acknowledgement of the petitioners having signed the said applications and, therefore, presumption would obviously he drawn towards the validity of the said scheme unless proved to the contrary. 14. 14. With regard to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the. petitioners that the petitioners did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of atleast 50 years of age as on the date of exercising the said option and that they had not completed 10 years of continuous service in the company so as to be eligible for voluntary retirement under the scheme on the relevant dates, I tun of the. considered view that if the petitioners were within the zone of eligibility criteria as stipulated under the scheme, then what prevented them from exercising their options in favour of the undertaking? Admittedly none of the petitioners raised any protest or demur at the time when they exercised their options and it was only at a later stage when they became aware of its implications, the' on second thought conveyed their intention of withdrawing from the said scheme. But by that t time the company had already passed necessary orders in pursuance of their acceptance of the aforesaid scheme and hence the petitioners having already exercised their options voluntarily in pursuance of the aforesaid scheme to the competent authority, they shall be deemed to have sought voluntary retirement from the date of their acceptance by the respondent-company. but however they all shall be entitled to the normal benefits which are admissible to them as on reaching the age of superannuation. As regards the service rendered by them to the company in pursuance of the aforesaid scheme, the benefits which have been made available to the employees who requested for voluntary retirement and which had been accepted by the company have been stipulated in the said scheme as under "Ex-gratia payment as per clause 62.1 Sc Notice Pay as per clause 6.2.2 taken together should not exceed the limit as spelt out under clause 6.2.1" 15. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to specifically controvert the aforesaid position nor he has specifically stated as to whether -the petitioners have already availed benefits under the scheme of voluntary retirement on exercise of their options in favour of the competent authority. 16. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to specifically controvert the aforesaid position nor he has specifically stated as to whether -the petitioners have already availed benefits under the scheme of voluntary retirement on exercise of their options in favour of the competent authority. 16. I am further of the view that petition involves the disputed questions of fact which require adjudication on appreciation of evidence by the appropriate authority and it is not for this court to enter into any discussion on the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 220 of the Constitution of India. 17. From the perusal of the impugned notice dated 5.4.1993, Annexure 3, it is clearly apparent that all those employees who have exercised their option for voluntary retirement shall be entitled to payment of legal dues as well as the aforesaid benefits which are payable to them tinder the scheme within ten days of submission of 'No Demand Certificate' by the applicants seeking voluntary retirement and the Finance Department of the company will ensure that all the payments are made to the concerned employees within two days from the receipt of final bills from the concerned establishments. 18. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar. learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decisions in the matter Balram Gupta v. Union of India, 1987 (Supp) SCC 228 and Ashat Ali Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1993 (2) WLC 267 . 19. In the matter of Balram Gupta v. Union of India (supra) the appellant who had completed more than 20 years of Govt. service by his letter of a particular date offered to seek voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. particular date by treating the notice period for the same. The Government allowed the appellant's request. However, in the mean time the appellant stated that on account of persistent and personal requests from the staff members, he had to change his mind and accordingly by his letter of request to the department. lie sought to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement but the authority concerned disallowed his request under Rule 48-A(4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules which precludes a Government servant from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority. lie sought to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement but the authority concerned disallowed his request under Rule 48-A(4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules which precludes a Government servant from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority. The apex court while allowing appeal held that there was no valid reason for withholding the permission by the respondent and therefore, the appellant was entitled to be put back to his job with all consequential benefits. 20. In the matter of Ashat Ali Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (sutra) the petitioner who was an employee serving under Controller. Rajasthan State Motor Garage, Jaipur had challenge the validity of the impugned order by which his option for voluntary retirement had been accepted by the competent authority. The competent authority rejected the said application for withdrawal and passed the order retiring the petitioner from service w.e.f. particular date though making the same to be effective from subsequent date for purposes of benefits of emoluments admissible to the employee consequent upon the acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement. Since no reason was given by the competent authority with regard to the rejection of the petitioner's application for withdrawing his request for voluntary retirement, it was held by learned Single Judge of this court that the petitioner was competent to withdraw his offer for seeking voluntary retirement in time prior to the specified date as the date of retirement and it was tinder these circumstances that the petitioner was reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 21. I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decision and in my considered view the same is neither attracted nor is applicable to the controversy which has been raised in this writ petition by the petitioners. 22. Consequently the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. 21. I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decision and in my considered view the same is neither attracted nor is applicable to the controversy which has been raised in this writ petition by the petitioners. 22. Consequently the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners will be entitled to all the benefits as admissible to them consequent upon acceptance of their other for voluntary retirement which has since already been accepted by the respondents- undertaking and has thus became irrevocable and such other benefits as admissible to the petitioner under the scheme of 1993, if not already released in favour of the petitioner they arc entitled for release of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order to the competent authority.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******