Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have came to this Court submitting that Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 5.11.2001 issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Government of India by which the Government modified the Revised Voluntary retirement scheme dated 5.5.2000 and has decided that the employees, who have already been released by the Public Sector Undertakings before the date of issue of the said Office Memorandum shall not be given the benefits under the Revised Scheme/Modified Scheme. 3. Undisputedly the Union of India floated certain Voluntary Retirement Scheme/Voluntary Separation Scheme (VRS/VSS, for short). Certain lucrative offers were made to the employees so that jural relationship of Master and Servant or Employer and Employee comes to an end and the dying corporations are saved of the extra expenses. In the present matter which relates to Bharat Wagon and Engineering Company Ltd. (A Government of India Undertaking), a Voluntary retirement Scheme was proposed on 6/8-11-2000. It provided for certain benefits to the employees. The scheme was thereafter amended by letter No. 2/32/97-DPE(WC)/GL-LVI dated 6.11.2001. Under this letter it was observed in paragraph 4 that the employees who have already been released by the Public Sector Undertakings before the date of issue of the said Office Memorandum shall not be covered under the Modified Scheme. It is also not disputed before me that the petitioners offers of voluntary retirement were accepted by the Corporation/Company and the petitioners stood retired with effect from 15.4.2001. Thereafter, yet another notice was issued vide Reference No. BWH/2553/3612 dated 28.12.2001. Certain extra lucrative offers were given to the Officers/Employees, who did not accept the earlier offers. However, paragraph 3 of the notice dated 28.12.2001 observed that ex gratia payment in respect of employees on pay scales at 1.1.1992 levels, computed on their existing pay scales in accordance with the extent scheme shall be increased by 50%. The offer was made more lucrative but paragraph 6 of the scheme observed that the employees who have already been released by the company before the date of issue of the said notice, shall not be covered under the Modified Scheme. 4. The petitioners submitted that if the petitioners were working on identical posts in the same Corporation then they cannot be treated differently. 4. The petitioners submitted that if the petitioners were working on identical posts in the same Corporation then they cannot be treated differently. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in a case like present Art. 14/16 of the Constitution of India would apply with full force and the Government as an employer cannot be allowed to play fraud by giving less to the persons, who have opted for their schemes much before its modification whereunder extra amount is to be paid. 5. The respondents in their submissions have said that under particular circumstances, the Public Sector Undertakings were to be closed. The Union of India has observed that it would be better to close all such undertakings before the Government is heavily loaded with further liabilities. The Supreme Court of India in the matter of A.K. Bindal and Anr. V/s. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2189 , has considered the entire scheme and has observed that in a case where a person accepts the Voluntary Retirement Scheme/VSS then on the day he walks out there is a complete cessation of the jural relationship of Employer and Employee/Master and Servant. If such a person, who happily walks out of the Establishment is allowed to raise further grievances regarding revision of pay or revision of the payments then that would open Pandoras Box. Undisputedly the petitioners were agreeable to the terms and conditions of the scheme dated 6/8-11-2000. With the open eyes they accepted the terms and conditions and finding the same to be favourable they accepted it. At this stage now they cannot be allowed to say that they were allured or fraud was played with them. A Master certainly would be entitled to get rid off the hard-core employees. If some of the employees accept the less lucrative offer and the Master thereafter feels that the hard-core employees are also to be get rid off by paying something extra then he would certainly be entitled. Simply because the employer is the Government, it is not expected of it that it would work foolish. The money spent by the Government ultimately is the public money. If a hard-core employee refuses to accept less lucrative scheme then he would continue to bother the employer and in a given case the offer to get rid off employee may become higher and higher. The money spent by the Government ultimately is the public money. If a hard-core employee refuses to accept less lucrative scheme then he would continue to bother the employer and in a given case the offer to get rid off employee may become higher and higher. The petitioners openly with fair understanding and open eyes accepted the offer dated 6.11.2000. They did not reserve any right unto themselves. They did not submit to the Establishment/Employer that in case the offer is revised in future they would also be entitled to the better offer. For them that was end of the matter. The curtain had fallen. They have chosen their entitlement and received the same. They cannot now be allowed to say that if better offers are to be given to the others who continued, therefore they are entitled to the said better offers then it would amount to reopening everything which was never the intention of the VRS/VSS. 6. Even otherwise the Government or the Master is entitled to modify the scheme so that it may apply from a future date to the persons opting for VRS/VSS from a future date. The Government or the Employer though said that it is a modified scheme but in fact it would be a new scheme for those who have yet not accepted the earlier scheme and are still working with the Employer/Establishment. 7. The petitioners once having accepted the offer cannot now be allowed to say that they are entitled to the benefits flowing from further offers which are now extended to the persons whoa re still working with the Establishment. The petition is dismissed.