JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Not on board. Upon mentioning matter taken up for hearing by consent. This matter was listed on 20-2-2001 but was adjourned at the instance of the petitioners to keep the office bearers of the Bank present in Court in terms of order dated 1-2-2001. Both Counsel agree that the matter was adjourned for today but is not listed. Upon mentioning office was directed to produce papers. 2. Heard Mr. Pakale. Mr. Pakale wanted to address this Court on various aspects of the matter including the maintainability of the complaint before the Court below. However, in view of the incipient stand taken by the petitioners and admissions given by the petitioners' witness before the Court below it is not possible to entertain this argument at this stage. On the last occasion also some points were argued and a detailed order was passed by this Court on 1-2-2001. What appears to me is that; right from the beginning the petitioners have taken the stand that the amount which is claimed by the respondents under the application is due and payable to them but for the paucity of funds the same could not be paid. This is clearly recorded even in the scheme dated 25-6-1997. When the matter went before the Court, no doubt the petitioners denied the claim in the pleading, but the witness examined on behalf of the petitioners-bank Raosaheb S. Patil admitted in cross examination which reads thus : " It is true that all the applicants are entitled for the amounts as claimed in the applns. The witness volunteers the bank is unable to pay the claims due to bad financial condition of the bank at present." Not only this, but the stand taken on behalf of the petitioners-bank before the lower Court was that the petitioners-bank is not disputing the claim as made in the application by respondents but would honour the same if sufficient time was given to make the payment. This is reflected from the observations made by the Court below inter alia in para 11 of the judgment under challenge which reads thus: "The amounts claimed by the applicants are undisputed by the opponent bank. The learned Advocate for the bank has admitted that the bank is not denying the said dues amount of the applicants as claimed. This is reflected from the observations made by the Court below inter alia in para 11 of the judgment under challenge which reads thus: "The amounts claimed by the applicants are undisputed by the opponent bank. The learned Advocate for the bank has admitted that the bank is not denying the said dues amount of the applicants as claimed. But is only denying that even today the bank's economic condition is bad and therefore the applicants are not entitled for the said amount as claimed at this stage. He has further submitted that there is no profit to the bank. Therefore the financial condition is not improved. This submission is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the V.R.S. and hence not acceptable. The learned Advocate for the opponent has also assured that the bank will pay the said amounts of the applicants as soon as the financial condition of the bank is improved. The applicants' witness, at Ex. U-21 page-4 had deposed that at present the Opponent bank is functioning and is in financial sound position. His statement is confirmed in cross exam. by denying a suggestion that the financial condition of the bank is extremely bad even now." 3. In addition to the said assurance given by the petitioner-bank through their Advocate before the Court below, the Court below has considered the evidence and has concluded that the various admissions given by the petitioner-bank's witness would clearly show that during subsequent period 39 employees were paid their terminal dues in cash by accepting their V.R.S. applications. The Court below has also recorded a finding of fact that the financial condition of the bank has improved and is not so bad as to forbid it from defraying the admitted claim. As observed in order dated 1-2-2001 the amount payable to the respondents would be around Rs. 25 lacs only and which became due and payable in the year 1998. Taking into account all these aspects of the matter it is too late in the day for the petitioners-bank to dispute its liability to pay as per the amounts claimed under the application by the respondents. 4. On the last occasion also it was made clear that the Court would give indulgence to the petitioners to the extent of granting payment facilities. 4. On the last occasion also it was made clear that the Court would give indulgence to the petitioners to the extent of granting payment facilities. But today, the learned Counsel, instead contends that the matter be decided on merits as it is not possible for the petitioners-bank to make payment in immediate near future since the petitioner-bank is already suffering losses to the tune of Rs. 8 crores. It is distressing that the Bank which ought to have reacted as a model employer has the audacity to take such a stand particularly when the respondents have submitted to the scheme formulated by the petitioners bank, which undoubtedly has been duly approved by the Reserve Bank of India. But for the scheme the respondents would have continued in service. The respondents on the one hand obtained voluntary retirement in the hope that they would get substantial amounts so that they could utilize the amount for the benefit of their family members either for education, marriage, housing etc. But the petitioners-bank is obviously determined that the respondents should be deprived of such benefit; although respondents acted in good faith pursuant to the voluntary retirement scheme of the petitioners-bank and changed their position to their disadvantage, rather irretrievably. I shudder to think how can the bank resort to approbate and reprobate in such a matter which concerns the question of livelihood of its employees, who had served the bank with sincerity and with a legitimate expectation to get their dues after retirement. The petitioners-bank, in my view, is taking inconsistent pleas and in the name of raising jurisdictional issue wants to succeed in protracting the matter if not dishonouring its commitment under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. In fact in view of the evidence of the petitioners' witness as well as the stand taken by the petitioners' Advocate before the lower Court it would be inappropriate to go into the question which is now sought to be raised, particularly when the petitioners have not challenged the correctness of the said statements/depositions. In the circumstances I am of the view that this is a fit case where no interference is called for in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence petition dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed. -----