ORDER 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner No. 1 was engaged as Foreman Trainee from January. 1967 to December 1971 (five years), the petitioner No. 2 as Trainee Supervisor for a period of three years, the petitioner No. 3 as Foreman Trainee for a period of five years. the petitioner No. 4 as Converter Foreman Trainee from April, 1967 to 13.4.1972 (5 years) and the petitioner No. 5 as Trainee Supervisor for a period of three years by the respondents. 3. The petitioners were initially engaged as Trainees against the post on which they were appointed and subsequently absorbed by the respondents. Thereafter they worked in the respondents company on different posts and subsequently they obtained for Voluntary Retirement and were released from service of the company. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that their Voluntary Retirement compensation, Gratuity etc. have been calculated excluding their respective period of training and the payments have been made to them by excluding training their respective period of 5. It is said that one Lakhvinder Singh and Arun Prasad who were similarly situated to that of the petitioners and who had opted for Voluntary Retirement under the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme and they were released from their services with effect from 16.11.2001. The respondent-company while calculating their retiral compensation etc. included their period of training and, therefore, the company is discriminating the petitioners and they have adopted two different yardsticks in calculating the length of service and in payment of the retiral dues including Voluntary Retirement dues and Gratuity etc. 6. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was floated in the year 1993 which was extended from time to time and Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1999 was in operation from 6.5.1999 to 10.7.1999. The petitioners were governed by the said Scheme as they took Voluntary Retirement during the aforesaid period in between 6.5.1999 to 10.7.1999. It is said that the petitioners who opted for Voluntary Retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and took all the benefits under the said Scheme and were released from service in the year 1999 Itself, but they never objected to the payment made to them and they also did not object to the mode of calculation and, therefore, at this stage now they are stopped from challenging the mode of calculation in computing the period/length of their service. 7. 7. So far as the point of discrimination raised by the petitioners is concerned, it is submitted that those two persons namely, Lakhvinder Singh and Arun Prasad took Voluntary Retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2001 which was prevalent at that very time and which was made more attractive than the earlier Voluntary Retirement Schemes to motivate more employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement and under that Scheme, it was decided to Include the period of training period in calculating the length of service. Accordingly, it is submitted that the two Voluntary Retirement Schemes i.e. one of 1999 and other of 2001 cannot be equated. 8. It is submitted that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Provatendu Banerjee v. M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, reported in 2004 (2) JCR 145 (Jhr) : 2003 (4) JLJR 44 . relying on the decision of the Supreme Court In the case of Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APS IDC Ltd. and Anr. v. R. Varaprasad and Ors., reported in 2003 (4) Supreme Today 245, has held that it is a matter of contract between the employer and the employees, it is not for the Courts to rewrite the terms of the contract which were clear to the contracting parties as Indicated in the guidelines and Circular governing them under which the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was floated, the parties are governed by the Scheme as it existed as on the date of their retirement of Scheme. 9. Relying on the aforesaid decision of this Court of the Division Bench in the case of Provatendu Banerjee (supra), I hold that it Is not open for this Court to reappreciate the materials on record based on any revision that may have been made subsequent to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 1999 under which there can be Voluntary Retirement. 10. Since the petitioners took VRS under VRS of 1999 and, therefore, they are entitled to the benefits under that Scheme of 1999 and not under any other Scheme. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application, as such, this application is dismissed.