ORDER The petitioner is, an association of the voluntary retired employees of Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited. It filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not extending the benefit under G.O.(P).No.204 dated 12-12-1997 for enhancement of Dearness Allowance arrears with effect from 1-7-1997 to its members as illegal, unjustified and consequently direct the respondent Corporation to pay the Dearness Allowance to the members of the petitioner association from 1-7-1997 to 31-12-1997 with all consequential benefits and interest, in accordance with the Board Resolution No.3025, dated 5-9-1997. 2. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is as follows. The members of the petitioner association worked in the respondent Corporation in various capacities. While they were in service, they were the members of the Andhra Pradesh State Agro Industries Corporation Employees Union. According to them, the respondent has been paying the scales of pay and allowances to its employees on par with the Government employees and as and when the State Government has revised the pay scales or enhanced the other service benefits, the respondent-Corporation also used to extend the same benefits to its employees without any exception and there was formal approval by the Board for the sanction of service benefits on par with the Government employees. 3. While so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.(P) No.269 dated 1-12-1995 enhancing the dearness allowance to its employees with effect from 1-7-1995. But the respondent-Corporation has not extended the benefit of the said G.O., to its employees and aggrieved thereby, the A.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Employees approached this Court by filing W.P.No.7971 of 1996, and this Court gave an interim direction to the respondent-Corporation to pay the enhanced dearness allowance to the employees of the Corporation in pursuance of G.O.(P) No.269, dated 7-12-1995, with effect from 1-7-1996, pending further orders. The said order was challenged by the respondent Corporation in Writ Appeal NO.934 of 1996 and a Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 13-8-1996, dismissed the said writ appeal. The said order was challenged by the respondent Corporation in Writ Appeal NO.934 of 1996 and a Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 13-8-1996, dismissed the said writ appeal. Against the same, the respondent Corporation filed Civil Appeal No.15076 of 1996along with S.L.P.No.21295 of 1996, and the Supreme Court by its order, dated 18-11-1996, without interfering with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, directed the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 4. It appears some negotiations have taken place between the management of the respondent Corporation and the office bearers of the petitioner-union therein, and in the light of the same, the petitioner therein as well as the respondent-Corporation have arrived at consensus and accordingly the General Secretary of the petitioner therein addressed a letter dated 3-9-1997 to the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Respondent Corporation stating that they would withdraw the writ petition and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, by order dated 12-9-1997. Pursuant to that the management discussed the sanction of enhanced dearness allowance as item NO.3 in its meeting held on 05-09-1997, and accordingly passed Resolution No.3025 resolving to pay the enhanced dearness allowance with effect from 01-01-1997 to its employees and also to sanction the dearness allowance automatically to its employees as and when the Government enhances the same. 5. It appears because of the crippled financial position, the respondent Corporation introduced voluntary retirement scheme. Pursuant to that most of the employees of the petitioner association, who were the members of the Andhra Pradesh State Agro Industries Corporation Employees Union, have opted for voluntary retirement, and thus retired from service with effect from 31-10-1997. As per the terms of the said voluntary retirement scheme, they were paid the terminal benefits, etc. 6. Be that as it may, the Government issued G.O.(P) NO.204 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.I) Department, dated 12-12-1997, enhancing the dearness allowance of the Government employees with effect from 01-7-1997. As per the terms of the said voluntary retirement scheme, they were paid the terminal benefits, etc. 6. Be that as it may, the Government issued G.O.(P) NO.204 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.I) Department, dated 12-12-1997, enhancing the dearness allowance of the Government employees with effect from 01-7-1997. Coming to know about the same and as the retired employees are also entitled for the said enhanced dearness allowance as they were in service upto 31-10-1997, the petitioner-association addressed a letter, dated 16-12-1997, requesting the Managing Director of the respondent corporation to pay· additional dearness allowance in terms of G.O.(P).No.204dated 12-12-1997fortheperiod from 01-07-1997t031-1 0-1997. However, the respondent Corporation has not responded. Later, the petitioner also got issued a legal notice on 15-2-1998 and also made a representation on 27 -04-1998, requesting the respondent-Corporation to extend the said benefit. However, as there was no response, the petitioner association was constrained to file the instant writ petition. 7. The respondent Corporation filed a detailed counter. The substance of the said counter is that the members of the petitioner association have opted for voluntary retirement and while opting for voluntary retirement, they have not claimed that they would be entitled for any enhancement of dearness allowance. It is further stated that because of the crippled financial position of the respondent Corporation, it is not in a position to pay the additional dearness allowance to those who opted for voluntary retirement and in fact, the respondent-Corporation is paying the additional dearness allowance to all its employees, who are in service, with effect from 01-01-1998 in terms of G.O.(P).No.204 dated 12-12-1997. It is also stated that the Board of Directors are empowered to amend or modify their resolutions passed earlier depending upon the exigencies and the business conditions, in the interest of the Corporation, and the members of the petitioner association cannot claim the benefit of Resolution No.3025 as a matter of right. Due to its crippled financial position the Corporation could not extend the benefit of G.O.(P).No.204 to the members of the petitioner-association and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. Due to its crippled financial position the Corporation could not extend the benefit of G.O.(P).No.204 to the members of the petitioner-association and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Udaya Sree, reiterating the contentions put forth in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, has strenuously contended that the members of the petitioner association opted for voluntary retirement with effect from 31-10-1997, and in terms of the Resolution No.3025, passed by the respondent Corporation, they are entitled to the benefits of G.O.(P).No.204 dated 12-12-1997. 10. Smt. Bala Rani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, on the other hand, contended that it is solely on account of the crippled financial position, the respondent-Corporation is not in a position to pay the arrears of additional dearness allowance to the members of the petitioner-association, and in fact the respondent-Corporation addressed a letter to the Government requesting to release the funds for meeting the additional expenses, such as payment of additional dearness allowance to the members of the petitioner association, but the Government rejected its claim and hence, it is not in a position to pay the arrears of dearness allowance to the members of the petitioner-association. She further contended that the Corporation has paid the additional dearness allowance to its employees, who are in service, in terms of G.O.(P).No.204 dated 12-12-1997, only with effect from 01-01-1998, but not from 01-07-1997. 11. From a perusal of the material on record and after hearing both the counsel at length, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the members of the petitioner-association is genuine and they are entitled for enhancement of dearness allowance. As stated above, the members of the petitioner-association earlier filed W.P.No. 7971 of 1996 for payment of additional dearness allowance on par with Government employees in terms of G.O.(P) No.269 dated 07-12-1995, and consequent upon the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition they were extended the benefit of the said G.O. It appears, as and when the Government enhanced the dearness allowance to its employees, the respondent Corporation also used to pay the enhanced dearness allowance to its employees. When such is the situation, there is no rationale for the respondent Corporation in not enhancing the dearness allowance to the members of the petitioner association in terms of G.O.(P).No.204 dated 12-12-1997. 12. In the earlier round of litigation, when the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, it appears the condition precedent was that the Corporation would enhance the dearness allowance to its employees on par with the Government employees, in terms of G.O.(P).No.269, and subsequent thereto, the management of the Corporation has discussed the same as item No.3 in its meeting and passed Resolution No.3025 and the relevant portion of the resolution reads as under: "Resolved that approval be and is hereby accorded to sanction four instalments of D.A., with arrears w.e.f. 01-01-1997 to the Corporation Employees on par with Government Employees consequent to withdrawal of W.P.No.7971/96 by the Employees Union. Further resolved that automatic sanction of Dearness Allowance to the Corporation Employees on par with Government Employees be effected and the same be released whenever the Government Orders for enhancement of D.A. instalments in future. Further resolved that the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director be and is hereby authorized to give effect to the above resolutions." 13. From this it is clear that in future also automatic sanction of dearness allowance to the employees of the Corporation on par with the Government employees would be effected. When the respondent Corporation considered the above aspect and passed a resolution, it cannot go back and say that due to its crippled financial position it is not in a position to extend the benefit of G.O.(P). NO.204 to the members of the petitioner-association. If really it is a fact that the respondent-Corporation is in crippled financial position, it is not known as to how it is paying the enhanced dearness allowance to its employees, who are in service, in terms of G.O.(PH·Jo.204. Of course, it is the contention of the learned standing counsel that the present employees of the Corporation are a few and thus it is in a position to meet the amount for additional dearness allowance. In my considered view, the said contention cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that the Corporation resolved to enhance the dearness allowance to its employees on par with the government employees. In my considered view, the said contention cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that the Corporation resolved to enhance the dearness allowance to its employees on par with the government employees. Admittedly, the members of the petitioner-association were in service upto 31-10-1997 and according to G.O.(P).No.204 dated 12-12-1997, the enhancement of dearness allowance is with effect from 01-07-1997. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners claim for enhancement of dearness allowance for the period from 01-07 -1997 to 31-10-1997 is bona fide and the Corporation has a duty to pay the said arrears of enhanced dearness allowance to them, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.