Judgment 1. This is a batch of cases which have grouped together for a common relief to direct the respondents M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited and others to grant the benefit of revised pay-scale, dearness allowance etc. in terms of the decision of the management, as contained in Circular No. 5/97 dated 9th October, 1997 with all consequential benefits. As the reliefs sought for are common in all the cases, therefore they are being disposed of by this Order. 2. Admittedly, with a view to reduce the strength of the employees and operational cost of production, the management introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short VRS.) by a circular dated 22nd October, 1990, applicable to the regular employees who had attained the age of 40 years of age and/or served the Corporation continuously for a minimum period of ten years. The employees who opted for the VRS were given various benefits like compensation, salary, cash value of unavailed earned leave, gratuity, provident fund etc, as detailed in clause 5.0 of the said scheme. 3. Undisputedly, all the writ petitioners after accepting the terms and conditions of the scheme, got voluntary retirement before the notification of the circular no. 5/97 dated 9th October, 1997, whereby and whereunder the pay scale of all the employees of the Corporation was revised. 4. The case of the petitioners/appellants is that undisputedly while making revision of the pay scale etc. by circular no. 2/91 dated 14th August, 1991, the management had granted the benefits to all such employees who had opted for voluntary retirement. But unfortunately, the benefit of revised pay scale, dearness allowances etc. which had been introduced vide Circular No. 5/97, is not being granted to the employees, who opted for the voluntary retirement scheme and ultimately retired from service. From a close reading of Circular No. 2/91, it is manifest that the benefit of revised pay scale was also granted to those categories of employees who superannuated under the VRS and were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 31.12.1986 but sub-sequently separated on account of superannuation, voluntary retirement etc. 5. In this case, the only question relevant for consideration is whether the employees of the Corporation who retired under the VRS are also entitled for the revised scale of pay, as applicable to other employees of the Corporation. 5. In this case, the only question relevant for consideration is whether the employees of the Corporation who retired under the VRS are also entitled for the revised scale of pay, as applicable to other employees of the Corporation. Clause 3 of the circular deals with the categories of employees who are entitled for the revised pay scales. As per clause 3.1 the benefit of revision of pay scales shall be applicable only to those employees who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992 and continued to be on the rolls of the Corporation as on date of the issue of this circular i.e. 9th October, 1997. Clause 3.2 further shows that revised scale shall also be applicable on the pro-rata basis to the employees who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992 but subsequently ceased to be in service of the Corporation on account of superannuation or death. Clause 3.3. shows that benefit of revised pay scale will not be applicable to those who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992 but subsequently left the services for the reasons of dismissal, discharge, resignation without permission, resignation due to disciplinary action for misconduct, moral turpitude etc. 6. From a bare reference to the coverage clause of the scheme, as noticed above, it would appear that only those employees would be entitled for the revised scale, who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992 and continued to be on the rolls as on the day of the issue of the circular i.e. 9th October, 1997. This is not in dispute that all the writ petitioners retired from service under the VRS before the aforementioned circular was notified on 9th October, 1997. Therefore, on a plain reading of the said circular, it would appear that the writ petitioners are not entitled for the revised scale since they had already ceased to be the employees of the Corporation on account of voluntary retirement before the date on which the circular was brought into effect. 7. The case of the writ petitioners is that earlier also vide circular no. 2/91 dated 14th August, 1991, there was a revision in the scale of pay, dearness allowance etc. 7. The case of the writ petitioners is that earlier also vide circular no. 2/91 dated 14th August, 1991, there was a revision in the scale of pay, dearness allowance etc. in respect of executives/employees of the respondent Corporation with effect from 1.1.1987 to 31.12.1991 wherein benefits of the revised scale was also extended to such persons apart from those who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 31.12.1986. The said circular also brought such executives/employees within its purview who had voluntarily retired after 31.12.1986. But unfortunately, under the instant circular no. 5/97, the effective date and duration for the revised scale of pay has been made from 1.1.1992 for a period of five years i.e. upto 31.12.1997 debarring the benefits to such employees who had proceeded on voluntary retirement before the date on which the circular was brought into effect. It was, therefore, contended that the circular in question was quite arbitrary and unjust so far it is with regard to the case of the writ petitioners. 8. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, a stand was taken since all the writ petitioners have voluntarily retired from service on their own volition and ultimately availed the benefits, they cannot be now allowed to claim the benefit of the revised scale which was brought into effect after their retirement. It was contended that VRS was introduced by the management with a view to reduce the manpower and bring down the operational cost of the production. 9. Undisputedly, a number of employees in various categories including the writ petitioners, availed the scheme knowing fully well the effect and implication of the various provisions of the scheme. That it is, by circular no. 2/91, the benefit of the pay revision etc. was also given to the employees who proceeded on voluntary retirement and those who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 31.12.1986 and had subsequently separated. But under circular no. 5/97, which was brought into effect from 1.1.1992, and remained in force for a period of five years, no provision was made to grant revised scale to the employees who had accepted the voluntary retirement. But under circular no. 5/97, which was brought into effect from 1.1.1992, and remained in force for a period of five years, no provision was made to grant revised scale to the employees who had accepted the voluntary retirement. It would also appear from the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge after considering the relevant circular and decision of the Apex Court in an identical case of Hindustan Machines Tools Ltd. and another V/s. M.S. Kang/P.N. Kashyap (1997) 11 SCC 186 has held that the writ petitioners were not entitled for the revised scale as was brought into effect vide circular no. 5/97. That apart, since all such employees had taken benefits under the voluntary retirement scheme, they cannot compel the management to give further benefits which were made available for the employees who were on the rolls of the Corporation otherwise main object of the VRS would frustrate. 10. Learned counsel for the writ petitione/s further contended that the circular in question is quite arbitrary and unjust, because, admittedly by circular no. 2/91, benefit was extended even to such employees who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 31.12.1986. The said circular was also effective for a period of five years from 1.1.1987 to 31.12.1991. But while notifying circular no. 5/95, the said benefit has only been extended to those who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992 and continued to be on the rolls on 9.10.1997, till the day the circular was brought into effect. He contended that such a retrospective application of the circular is quite arbitrary and with a view to exclude many such employees including the petitioners who were legally entitled for the benefit. It was contended that having regard to the provisions as made out in circular no. 2/91, the writ petitioners were under a legitimate expectation that in case of further revision of pay scale, the employees who proceeded on voluntary retirement, would also be entitled to the benefits. It was contended that having regard to the provisions as made out in circular no. 2/91, the writ petitioners were under a legitimate expectation that in case of further revision of pay scale, the employees who proceeded on voluntary retirement, would also be entitled to the benefits. Reference in this regard was made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Oil Extraction & another V/s. State of M.P. and others (1997) 7 SCC 592 and the case of Delhi Science Forum and others V/s. Union of India and another (1996) 2 SCC 405 and yet another case of Dhanraj and others V/s. State of J. & K. and others (1998) 4 SCC 30 . 11. In our view, none of the decisions referred to above, are applicable to the facts of the present case. Because In the present case all the writ petitioners have proceeded on voluntary retirement after accepting the terms and conditions which were then available. That apart normally, it is not within the domain of any Court to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinise and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of varying, modifying or annulling. When the management formed its policy based on a number of circumstances on facts including constraints based on financial resources, it would be dangerous for a Court to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the circular to those who had already proceeded on voluntary retirement under a particular scheme. We have already noticed that the respondent Corporation With a view to reduce the financial burden on production had adopted the voluntary retirement scheme to bring down the number of employees. Therefore, the financial constraints of the appellantCorporation is also one of the important factors to be taken into consideration. The Court, therefore, should not normally enter into such arena because these are the affairs of the management which formed the policy. Reference in this regard can be usefully made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others V/s. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 117 . 12. That apart, from a bare reference to the coverage clause of the circular no. Reference in this regard can be usefully made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others V/s. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 117 . 12. That apart, from a bare reference to the coverage clause of the circular no. 5/97, it would appear that only those employees are entitled for the benefit of the revised scale who were on the rolls of the Corporation on 1.1.1992 and continued on the rolls on the day when the notification was brought into effect. Therefore, it is thus plain that those employees who had voluntarily retired and availed all the benefits under that scheme, before the date on which the circular was brought into effect, stand out of the consideration. In support of the view, a reference can be made to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of V. Kasturi V/s. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and another (1998) 8 SCC 30 . 13. Apart from the aforesaid, from a bare reference to the case of Hindustan Machines Tools Ltd. and another vs. M.S. Kang/P.N. Kashyap (supra), it would appear that the benefit of revised scale under a special scheme can only be extended to those who were already in service on the cut off date fixed by the management. It is not the duty of the Court to extend the outer limit of the cut off date fixed under a particular scheme, to provide the benefit of the scheme to a different class of employees who are in fact not entitled. Therefore, the writ petitioners having voluntarily retired under a special scheme are not the employees who can lay claim for the revised scale etc. as provided vide circular no. 5/97. Reference in this regard can usefully be made to paragraph 10 of the judgment under appeal where the relevant passage of the case of Hindustan Machines Tools Ltd. and another vs. M.S. Kang/ P.N. Kashyap (supra) has already been quoted to show that in an identical case the Apex Court has refused to grant the benefit. 14. For the reasons stated above, there appears no merit in these cases. They are hereby dismissed.