ORDER Writ petition by a person who was formerly an employee working as an Accountant in the services of the respondent I-Corporation, who had opted for voluntary retirement in a scheme introduced by the employer and which had been extended to the petitioner with effect from 31-81999. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the petitioner being provided the option of retiring under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the petitioner has not been paid the full and proper emoluments in terms of the scheme; that he has been short paid to an extent of Rs. 1,36,107/- and therefore, the petitioner had given repeated representations to the respondent 1, but the respondent 1 not having heeded to the request of the petitioner, the present writ petition seeking for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents not only to furnish details of calculation of the amount that had been settled hitherto in favour of the petitioner purporting to be in terms of the scheme dated 27-5-1999 (copy at Annexure-A) and the circular dated 5-6-1999 (copy at Annexure-B) indicating certain modifications of the scheme, but also to compel the respondents to pay the difference amount of Rs. 1,36,107/- or any other appropriate direction in the circumstance of the case. 3. Notice had been issued to the respondents and the respondent 1 has entered appearance through Counsel Sri R. Krishnamurthy. Statement of objections has also been filed. 4. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner in fact had been paid the amount in terms of the scheme; that the scheme entitled the petitioner to receive a sum of Rs. 4,430/- per month for a maximum period of 13 years; that said amount was being paid regularly for about 41 months, but due to certain financial constraints, there was delay in paying the monthly payments, but as in the meanwhile there was a direction issued to the respondent-Corporation by the Government to see that delays do not recur, amount could be settled once and for all on the basis of certain calculations by capitalising the amount at' 8% net present value method and the petitioner had been paid such amount as calculated on such premise which had worked out to Rs. 3,74,263/- in terms of cheque bearing No. 675213, dated 19-5-2004 which had been sent to the petitioner and which had been duly acknowledged, accepted and encashed by the petitioner; that it is thereafter the petitioner has been making repeated representations for additional amount on the premise that the monthly entitlement at the rate of Rs. 4,430/- per month will work out to a sum of Rs. 6,92,328/- whereas the total amount whether on monthly basis or lumpsum of Rs. 3,38,759/- as final settlement on 22-5-2004 added falls short by Rs. 1,36,107/- to make up the amount of Rs. 6,92,328/- and had sought for payment of this amount, but the petitioner being not entitled for the same, has been replied to this effect; that the writ petition is without any merit; that the petitioner is in fact not entitled for this amount; that the petitioner having accepted the lumpsum payment in terms of the calculation as indicated above cannot seek for any further payment etc., and has urged for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri Mukkannappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for the respondent 1-Corporation and Smt. Sheela Anish, learned Government Advocate for respondent. 6. A perusal of the scheme indicates that the payment envisaged to persons seeking benefit of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was one of payment of 80% of the emoluments computed as per the scheme till the retirement or for a maximum period of 13 years whichever is shorter. It is the term of the scheme that payment will be monthly and not in a lumpsum. Petitioner in terms of the scheme could have opted for receiving this sum which undisputedly worked out to Rs. 4,430/- per month over a period of 13 years, but in view of certain intermittent problems it appears the Government thought it fit to capitalise the balance payment and to direct the Corporation to settle that amount on persons who had opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme in one lumpsum so, that they can receive lumpsum amount and relieved of agony of intermittent stoppage of the payment etc. This modification of the scheme it appears had been implemented uniformly by the respondent-Corporation and all persons like the petitioner who had opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme had been paid lumpsum amount in terms of the capitalisation value as arrived at pursuant to the directions of the State Government. This modification of the scheme it appears had been implemented uniformly by the respondent-Corporation and all persons like the petitioner who had opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme had been paid lumpsum amount in terms of the capitalisation value as arrived at pursuant to the directions of the State Government. Petitioner has received this amount and had the benefit of this amount, but it is only thereafter the petitioner is agitating for payment of the balance amount on the premise that the payment if should be paid on monthly basis for a period of 13 years worked out to Rs. 6,92,328/- etc. 7. It is no doubt true that the petitioner if should have been receiving monthly payment, it could have worked out to Rs. 6,92,328/-, but for receiving the amount the petitioner has to wait for 13 years period and not earlier to that period. If one were to calculate the total payment that the petitioner has received hitherto, in fact, works out that he has received much more than the amount that he could have received at this point of time on the basis of monthly payments. 8. Petitioner has received the amount in advance and once and for all in respect of the entire amount that would have become payable as and when it fell due over a period of 13 years. The scheme as modified pursuant to the directions of the Government not only appears to be quite reasonable but one which can be said to be in the interest of such persons who had taken voluntary retirement under the scheme as they are relieved of the ordeal of the respondent-Corporation being not in a position to make regular monthly payments due to financial constraints. 9. It is submitted at the Bar that the respondent-Corporation has since been closed down, stopped its activities and is virtually defunct. 10. In such a state of affairs, when its ability to keep paying the monthly payments to such a large number of former employees who had opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme is virtually a contingent factor and could have become impossible in which event the persons like the petitioner would have been left high and dry thereafter. The scheme as modified which ensures payment to them in one lumpsum even in advance but on capitalisation basis is definitely a more beneficial alternative. The scheme as modified which ensures payment to them in one lumpsum even in advance but on capitalisation basis is definitely a more beneficial alternative. Petitioner having accepted this alternative without demur cannot turn around and seek for payment on the monthly basis and at any rate that payment which has not fallen due is not the amount which the petitioner can seek for by approaching this Court and seek issue of a writ of mandamus. 11. As it is found even on the monthly basis what the petitioner had received at this point of time is much more than the entitlement upto this point of time, there is no question of issuing any mandamus. 12. Petitioner having accepted the amount cannot make a grievance of the same after accepting the amount. In fact, if the petitioner is only interested in getting monthly payment, the respondent-Corporation will have to recover the excess payment from the petitioner. 13. As it is noticed that the scheme as modified was one more beneficial to the employees, it is not necessary for this Court to issue directions to the respondent-Corporation to adhere to the scheme as was proposed originally, that is one of monthly payments spread over a maximum period of 13 years. Petitioner virtually being a beneficiary under the modified scheme cannot also have any grievance and the claim for payment of difference of Rs. 1,36,107/- is more an imaginary claim than based on any real entitlement. Writ petition has absolutely no merit and only deserves to be dismissed. 14. It appears that the amount even as paid to the petitioner is over and above the entitlement in terms of the capitalisation method and that the Corporation has filed a suit for recovery of excess amount. It is an issue which is independent which can be agitated before the appropriate Court. No need to pass any orders in this regard. 15. Writ petition is dismissed.