Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. Since in all these writ petitions petitioners who are retired employees have prayed for common relief the said writ petitions are disposed of by this order. 2. The petitioners who are the ex-employees of respondent M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ commanding upon the respondent to give to the petitioners benefit of revised pay-scale, Dearness Allowances, etc. in pursuant of the decision of the Management as contained in Circular No. 5/97 dated 9-10-1997 along with all the consequential benefits. 3. The petitioners took voluntary retirement under the voluntary retirement Scheme laid down in Circular No. 15/90 dated 22-10-1990. Petitioners case is that on the earlier occasion vide Circular No. 2/91 dated 14-8-1991, there had been revision in scale of pay, dearness allowances, etc. in respect of the Executive/Employees in the equivalent salary grade which was effective from 1-1-1987 to 31-12-1991 in which benefits of revised scale had been extended to such persons apart from those who were on the rules of the Corporation as on 31-12-1986 copy of the circular dated 14-8-1991 filed and annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is contended that. Circular No. 2/91 brought such Executive/employees within its purview who had voluntarily retired after 31-12-1986 and they had been paid the benefit of the revision of pay-scale and dearness Allowance. The respondent-Corporation subsequently came out with another Circular bearing No. 5/97 dated 9-10-1987 revising the pay-scale, dearness allowance etc. in respect of Executive/another employees and the effective date and duration for revised scale of pay is from 1-1-1992, for a period of five years i.e. up to 31-12-1996. However, the circular debarred extension of benefits to such persons who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1-1-1992 but have subsequently left the service of the Corporation on account of dismissal, discharge, resignation, without permission and resignation in case where disciplinary action for misconduct involving moral turpitude has been initiated or contemplated. A copy of circular dated 9-10-1997 has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Petitioners case is that they do not come within the category of Executive/employees who are debarred from getting the benefits of the revised pay-scale as per the Circular dated 9th October, 1997. A copy of circular dated 9-10-1997 has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Petitioners case is that they do not come within the category of Executive/employees who are debarred from getting the benefits of the revised pay-scale as per the Circular dated 9th October, 1997. It is contended that respondent-Corporation in a highly arbitrary manner choosen not to extend the benefits of Circular No. 5/97 insofar as case of the petitioners were concerned. According to petitioners they had retired after 1-1-1992 and were entitled to get wage of revision benefit from 1-1-1992 till the date of their retirement along with all consequential benefits. Petitioners said to have made several representations before the respondent-Corporation but the respondents have not given any benefit of revision of pay-scale to the petitioners who have retired after 1-1 -1992. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent-Corporation, it is stated inter alia that voluntary retirement scheme was introduced by the management with a view to reduce the man power and bring down the operational cost of the production. The voluntary retirement scheme was introduced in 1990 and subsequently, the same was revised and various modifications made in the original scheme. The scheme was opened to the eligible employees who in their own volition has voluntarily applied for separation under the terms and conditions stipulated in the scheme from time to time. It is stated that a number of employees in various categories and levels voluntarily availed of the scheme knowing fully well the effect and implications of the provisions contained in the scheme and the competent authorities of the Corporation took decision for release of the employees as per the list issued from time to time and payment were made in full and final settlement of the claims and duly accepted by such voluntarily retired employees, without expressing any reservation in any form at the time of receiving the payments Further case of the respondents is that under Circular 2/91 the pay-scale of employees/Executive were revised w.e.f. 1-1-1987 and under the heading coverage the applicability of the revised scales of pay given to the Executive/employees who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 31-12-1986 and have subsequently separated. The revised pay-scale as per Circular No. 5/97 is effective from 1-1-1992 and were to remain in force for a period of 5 years. The revised pay-scale as per Circular No. 5/97 is effective from 1-1-1992 and were to remain in force for a period of 5 years. The circular No. 5/97 is different from various provisions of earlier Circular and clear provisions regarding the eligibility of the employees who had accepted Voluntary Retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was laid down. Respondent, therefore, contended that petitioner was not entitled to any benefit of revised pay-scale under Circular 5/97. 5. I have heard Dr. Dilip Jerath, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. Mr. Jerath learned Counsel firstly submitted that the act of the respondent in not giving to the petitioner the benefit of revised scale of pay, dearness allowance, etc. in pursuant to circular No. 5/97 while giving it to other retired employees is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned Counsel submitted that admittedly, all the petitioners have retired under the voluntary retirement scheme after 1-1-1992 and the impugned circular No. 5/97 has been made effective from 1-1-1992, therefore, petitioners are entitled to get benefit under the aforesaid circular. Learned Counsel submitted that the act of respondent in keeping silent on the point regarding extension of benefit of the circular in question insofar as such employees who have voluntarily retired, amounts to further discrimination, since those employees who had retired voluntarily earlier had been given benefit under the earlier circular No. 2/91 which also gives the benefit of revision of pay and dearness allowance, etc. to such employees who had taken voluntary retirement. 6. On the other hand, Mr. M.M. Banerjee learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that petitioners retired under a specific voluntary retirement scheme and on fulfilling all the conditions of the Scheme petitioners were released after giving all the monetary benefits which have been accepted by them in full and final settlement of the claim. According to learned Counsel, petitioners do not come within the purview of 1997 Circular and therefore, they have no right to claim any benefits under the said Circular. 7. As noticed above the voluntary retirement Scheme was introduced by the management of the Corporation with a view to reduce the man power and bring down operational costs of the production. The said Scheme was introduced in 1990 and the same was revised and various modifications were made in the original scheme. 7. As noticed above the voluntary retirement Scheme was introduced by the management of the Corporation with a view to reduce the man power and bring down operational costs of the production. The said Scheme was introduced in 1990 and the same was revised and various modifications were made in the original scheme. When the Scheme was opened the eligible employees in their own volition applied for separation under the terms and conditions stipulated under the Scheme. It appears that a number of employees in various categories including the petitioner availed of the scheme knowing fully well the effects and implications of the provisions contained in the scheme and the Corporation took decision for release all those employees including petitioners. The petitioners after release received all the monetary benefits under the Scheme without expressing any reservation in any form at the time of receiving the payment. The main contention of the petitioner is that under Circular 2/91 in which pay-scale of the, employees/Executive were revised w.e.f. 1-1-1987 the retired employees also got benefit of revision of scale of pay under the aforesaid circular petitioners, therefore, are entitled to get benefit under Circular No. 5/97 which has been made effective from 1-1-1992, when admittedly petitioners got voluntary retirement after 1-1-1992. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioners, it would be useful to look into the Circular namely 2/91 and 5/97. Clause 3.2 and 3.3 of Circular No. 2/91 reads as under: 3.2-"The revised scales of pay shall be applicable on a pro-rata basis to the following categories of Executive/Employees in equivalent salary Grades who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 31-12-1986 but have subsequently separated due to: 3.2.1 Superannuation; 3.2.2 Voluntary Retirement; 3.2.3 Discharge on Medical grounds; 3.2.4 Death while in service; 3.2.5 Resignation: 3.3-The benefits of revision of scales of pay shall not be applicable to those Executives/Employees in equivalent salary. Grades who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 31-12-1986, but have subsequently left the services of the Corporation before the date of issue of this Circular for the following reasons: 3.3.1 Dismissal; 3.3.2 Resignation without permission; 3.3.3 Resignation where disciplinary action for misconduct involving moral turpitude has been initiated or contemplated. Grades who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 31-12-1986, but have subsequently left the services of the Corporation before the date of issue of this Circular for the following reasons: 3.3.1 Dismissal; 3.3.2 Resignation without permission; 3.3.3 Resignation where disciplinary action for misconduct involving moral turpitude has been initiated or contemplated. From reading the aforementioned Clause, it is manifest that the benefit of revised pay-scale was made applicable on different categories of employees who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 31 -12-1986, but. subsequently separated on account of Superannuation, Voluntary Retirement, Discharge on Medical ground, Death while in service and resignation. Under Circular No. 5/97 Clause 3.2 and 3.3 reads as under: 3.2-The revised scales of pay shall also be applicable on a. pro-rata basis to only those Executives, Non-Unionised Supervisors and Employees in equivalent Salary Grades who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1-1-1992, but have subsequently ceased to be in service of the Corporation on account of superannuation or death. 3.3-Benefits of revision of scales of pay shall not be applicable to those Executives, Non-Unionised Supervisors and employees in equivalent Salary Grades of the Corporation who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1-1-1992, but have subsequently left the services of the Corporation for the following reasons: 3.3.1 Dismissal; 3.3.2 Discharge; 3.3.3 Resignation without permission; 3.3.4 Resignation in cases where disciplinary action for misconduct involving moral turpitude has been initiated or contemplated. It is, therefore, manifest that Clause 3.2 of 5/97 is different from various provisions of earlier Circular No. 2/91 in which clear provision was made regarding eligibility of the Employees who had accepted voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, Clause 3.2 of Circular 5/97 does not included the employees who opted for Voluntary Retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme became eligible for the revised scale of pay. 8. Be that as it may, in my view, since petitioners had accepted voluntary Retirement under the scheme of their own volition and the Scheme was duly approved by the Government does not provide for any payment of arrears in the event of pay revision benefit which employees were entitled to have been clearly spelt out in the said Scheme and, therefore, the petitioners have no any indefeasible right to seek any further payment beyond the provisions of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 9. 9. As noticed above the respondent-Corporation under the Scheme of 1990, relieved the surplus staff by giving special benefits to those employees who offered for Voluntary Retirement. The petitioners accepted the terms & conditions incorporated under the Scheme and Voluntarily retired from service after receiving all payments. After the petitioners have been relieved of the duty the jural relationship between the employer and the employee came to an end. In my view, therefore, the petitioners have no legal and vested right to claim any benefits subsequently given to the employees on rolls under a circular or scheme. Moreover, when the Circular No. 5/97 expressly excluded those employees who have voluntarily retired, the petitioners have no right to claim any benefits under the said circular. 10. Recently Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Machines Tools Ltd. and Anr. v. M.S. Kang/P.N. Kashyap 1997 Vol XI-187 has considered a similar question. The facts of the case was that the appellant M/s. Hindustan Machines Tools formulated a scheme for Voluntary Retirement of the employees who have completed 45 years of age, effective from 1-4-1989 for a period of three months subject to the conditions specified in the scheme. The respondents had accepted the scheme and retired thereunder. Thereafter by Office Order No. 45 of 1990 dated 1-3-1991 pay-scales were revised in respect of existing employees and those who retired from time to time. In furtherance thereof, the respondents claimed and revision of scale of pay was sought to be given effect by the office but, the audit objection to the payment thereof was raised. Consequently, the employees filed writ petitions in the High Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal was dismissed. The employer-Corporation then filed special leave before the Supreme Court. In that case, their Lordships held that the employees having retired under the special scheme are not the employees covered under the Voluntary retirement issued under a different rules. Their Lordships observed: It is seen that the Office Order No. 45 dated 1-3-1991 provides that the revised pay-scales shall be effective from 1-1-1987 and will remain in force for a period of five years up to 31-12-1991. Their Lordships observed: It is seen that the Office Order No. 45 dated 1-3-1991 provides that the revised pay-scales shall be effective from 1-1-1987 and will remain in force for a period of five years up to 31-12-1991. Clause 2.2 provides that the revised pay-scales shall also be applicable on a pro rata basis to those categories of employees who were on the rolls of the, company as on 31-12-1986, but have subsequently separated due to superannuation and voluntarily retirement, etc. Those who retired on attaining the age of 58 years or voluntarily retired under Rule 24.2(b) or (c) as the case may be, under the conduct, discipline and Appeal Rules referred to herein before are persons referred to in Clause 2.2.2 of the office order. The benefits of the revision of pay-scales shall not be applicable to those persons who were on the rolls of the company as on 31-12-1986, but subsequently left the service of the company before the date of issue of office order No. 45 of 1990 for any reason, whatsoever, including resignation except the category mentioned in Clause 2.2 above. Thereby, the necessary implication is that all those who are covered and stand on the same footing are excluded except to the extent of gratuity, revision of the terminal benefits as mentioned in para 6.13 which postulates that gratuity paid or payable to employees covered under Clause 2.2 will be recalculated on the revised pay subject to the prescribed ceiling Thus, it cannot be seen that the distinction has been drawn between employees who retired voluntarily under Rule 24.2 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules or the employees who retired under the Special Scheme operating from time to time. The respondents having retired under the Special Scheme are not employees covered under the voluntary retirement under Rule 24.2 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules referred to here in before. Accordingly, the High Court was not right in directing recomputation of the compensation under Office Order No. 45 dated 1-3-1991. 11. Besides the above if the contentions of the petitioners are accepted then entire object of introducing voluntary retirement scheme by the Corporation will be frustrated and the employees who have been paid lump sum amount together with other benefits under the, Scheme will again be benefited under the Circular No. 5/97. 11. Besides the above if the contentions of the petitioners are accepted then entire object of introducing voluntary retirement scheme by the Corporation will be frustrated and the employees who have been paid lump sum amount together with other benefits under the, Scheme will again be benefited under the Circular No. 5/97. Moreover, the employees after taking all benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme cannot compel the management to give further benefits in the event management comes with a circular after Six years revising pay-scale of the employees on rolls with effect from a particular date. 12. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the reliefs claimed by the petitioners have no merit at all. These writ application are therefore dismissed.