Order 1. Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.C. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to provide employment to their dependants under Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the female employees of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short, "B.C.C.L.") dated 12.4.1995. 3. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are entitled to get benefit of the scheme aforesaid and since they have completed 50 years of age and they have voluntarily retired, the same could have been accepted and the dependants could have been employed in their place. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents are giving this benefit under the aforesaid scheme to other such employees and by denying the same to the petitioners they are violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel further submitted that as per scheme aforesaid, the petitioners could have been allowed to retire prematurely and their wards could have been appointed. Mr. N.C. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the scheme aforesaid is no more operative and the respondents company are not duty bound to implement the scheme aforesaid under which the voluntary retirement was conditional one. 4. In many of the cases of the like nature, this Court has repeatedly held that the scheme aforesaid is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as public at large are not getting any opportunity of employment as posts are being filled up by accommodating the wards of their female employees after accepting their voluntary retirement. Even under the scheme the petitioners cannot claim employment of their wards as a matter of right. For issuance of a writ of mandamus, a party must have legal and judicially enforceable right. Even under the scheme the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that their voluntary retirements should be accepted and their wards should be employed. After going through the counter affidavit, it appears to me that the scheme aforesaid has been modified from time to time and it is no more operative. 5. Even under the scheme the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that their voluntary retirements should be accepted and their wards should be employed. After going through the counter affidavit, it appears to me that the scheme aforesaid has been modified from time to time and it is no more operative. 5. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Jafli Devi (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 301, the Apex Court has held that for implementation of a scheme, the High Court need not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court cannot interfere with the policy decision on the ground of hardship or on the ground of compassion. 6. Since the petitioners cannot claim acceptance of voluntary retirement and employment of their wards as a matter of right, they do not have a legal right nor the same can be said to be judicially enforceable right. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I refrain from exercising my power under Article 226 of the Constitution and this application, accordingly, is dismissed.