Judgment : V. Eswaraiah, J. Heard the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as the Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent Corporation. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.1737/1999, dated 05.07.2005. The said writ petition has been filed by the appellant herein seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the respondent Corporation dated 27.02.1997 and 12.01.1999, discharging him from service on medical grounds, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently seeking a direction, directing the respondent Corporation to reinstate him into service or extend the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "VRS") benefits. A Learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was discharged from service on medical invalidation on 28.02.1997, but whereas the VRS came into operation with effect from 28.06.1997 i.e. four months after the termination of the appellant on medical grounds. The learned single Judge also held that the respondent had justifiably rejected the representation filed by the appellant dated 01.03.1997 by letter dated 12.01.1999, on the ground that the VRS came into force with effect from June, 1997, but whereas he was discharged from service on account of medical invalidation prior to June, 1997. The learned single Judge further held that the appellant herein was subjected to medical examination for the second time for the purpose of considering his case on par with the others, but unfortunately, the Medical Board found him to be unfit to hold the post, and therefore, the case of the appellant cannot be considered for the purpose of treating him to have been retired under VRS, which was introduced by the respondent Corporation with effect from 28.06.1997. The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, submits that in fact, the appellant was never subjected to the medical examination for the second time for the purpose of considering his case for extending VRS benefits, but the learned single Judge erroneously held that the appellant was subjected to the medical test for the second time and that he was found unfit to hold the post. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation in the writ petition, in paragraph-7, it is stated that one Sri G. Satyanarayana, Junior Manager (Stores) and Sri A. Kanakaiah were subjected to second medical test, but there is no mention in the counter with regard to subjecting the appellant to the medical test for the second time. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there was no second medical test conducted to the petitioner after his retirement on medical grounds. The appellant was initially joined in the respondent Corporation as Senior Assistant on 17.03.1973 and he was promoted as Public Relations Officers in the year 1980. Thereafter, he was made as Assistant Manager (Press) in the year 1984. While so, he was sent to the Special Medical Board on 27.11.1996 for medical check up and the Special Medical Board declared him as unfit for duty, vide Medical Report dated 27.11.1996. The report of the Special Medical Board go to show that one Sri D.V. Prasad Rao, Engineer, Sri G. Satyanarayana, Junior Manager (Stores) and Sri A. Kanakaiah, Engineer were unfit for duties, and the petitioner Sri D. Hanumantharao, Assistant Manager was also unfit for duty, and in addition, he was willing to retire voluntarily, provided Government Rules are implemented. Hence he may be allowed to retire. Basing on the said Medical Report dated 27.11.1996, the respondent Corporation issued a Memo dated 27.02.1997, discharging all the four persons from service who are found medically unfit for duty, and it was also held that they are not entitled to the benefits of VRS as no such scheme is under implementation by the Corporation as on that day. It is not in dispute that the VRS was not being implemented as on the date of order i.e. on 27.02.1997, but VRS came into force with effect from 28.06.1997. Questioning the similar impugned order dated 28.02.1997; a similarly situated person filed W.P.4779/1997 on the file of this Court to declare the impugned proceedings dated 28.02.1997 as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondent to continue him in service. A Learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 24.09.1997, disposed of the writ petition, holding that declaring the said employee by the Medical Board as unfit for service is without assigning any reasons and cannot be justified. A Learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 24.09.1997, disposed of the writ petition, holding that declaring the said employee by the Medical Board as unfit for service is without assigning any reasons and cannot be justified. Accordingly, the petitioner therein was directed to appear before the Specially Constituted Medical Board, within one month, and if the Second Medical Board finds him fit to hold the post, he shall be taken back into service and the period of his absence during the interval shall be regularized and he shall be given continuity of service. If the second Medical Board comes to the conclusion, for the reasons to be given, that he cannot be continued in service, he is permitted to make a representation for suitable alternative employment or voluntary retirement in pursuance of the demand made by the Union in July, 1997, and it shall be considered by the respondent Corporation by passing appropriate orders. Following the aforesaid judgment, another similar writ petition filed by Sri A. Kanakaiah and others in W.P.5923/1997 was similarly disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 19.11.1997. The learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent Corporation, submits that as the appellant herein has already attained the age of superannuation, the question of subjecting him for the second medical test and considering his case for reinstatement does not arise. The learned standing counsel further argued that the appellant has not approached this Court immediately after his termination, as in the case of similarly situated employees whose writ petitions are referred to above and he contends that the appellant is not entitled to the similar relief. It is to be noted that immediately after the termination under the impugned proceedings dated 27.02.1997, the appellant made a representation dated 01.03.1997 seriously questioning the report of the Medical Board apart from other aspects. When the said representation of the appellant was rejected under the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 27.02.1997, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The aforesaid contention of the learned standing counsel, therefore, has no merits. Secondly the medical report as well as the impugned proceedings dated 27.02.1997 are almost identical with respect to each of the employees which include the appellant as well as the petitioners in other writ petitions referred to above. The aforesaid contention of the learned standing counsel, therefore, has no merits. Secondly the medical report as well as the impugned proceedings dated 27.02.1997 are almost identical with respect to each of the employees which include the appellant as well as the petitioners in other writ petitions referred to above. On the very same medical report and termination of other employees, this Court having allowed the writ petitions with the above directions, the appellant herein whose case also is identical and governed by the same set of facts, cannot be denied relief. The appellant is not seeking the relief of his reinstatement. The case of the appellant, from the beginning, is only for extension of VRS benefits. Therefore, the question of subjecting him to medical test by the Specially Constituted Medical Board for the second time does not arise, as his retirement on medical grounds, based on the Medical Report, is illegal because the Medical Board did not assign any reasons to declare him as unfit for duty. As the very same Medical Report is held to be illegal and without assigning any reasons, the discharge order based on the said report of Medical Board cannot be held as legal and justified, and therefore, the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service and is entitled for VRS benefits, which was came into force with effect from 28.06.1997. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, allowed, setting aside the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.1737/1999, dated 05.07.2005 and the writ petition stands allowed, directing the respondent Corporation to extend the Voluntary Retirement Scheme benefits to the appellant. No order as to costs.