JUDGMENT A.K. Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland, appearing for the State Respondents. 2 The case of the Petitioners is that they were employees of Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, for short, UCB, which is under liquidation. UCB was sponsored and financed by the Government of Nagaland. The Reserve Bank of India, for short, RBI, had issued an order dated 07-11-2006, cancelling the License of UCB and consequently, the Respondent No. 4, the Registrar, Co-Operation Department, Nagaland had cancelled the Registration of UCB by an order dated 28-03-2007. Subsequent to the cancellation of the license by the RBI, the Board of Directors of UCB had taken a resolution in the meeting held on 06-12-2006 to move the Government for grant of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, for short, VRS, to the Staff of UCB. The resolution was also forwarded to Respondent No. 4 by the Chairman of the Bank along with the proposal by letter dated 29-01-2007. It is further pleaded that the Government of Nagaland in the Co-Operation Department by a letter dated 07-03-2007, had also informed the Respondent No. 4 that a sum of Rs. 21.66 lakhs would be provided during the next financial year i.e. 2007-08 for the VRS of 10 employees of the UCB. On 07-06-2007, however, the Petitioners' services were terminated w.e.f. 01-07-2007 in pursuance of the resolution No. 5 (b) of the meeting of the Board of Directors of UCB held on 17-03-2007. The Petitioners had submitted representations including the representation dated 18-09-2007 praying for granting the benefit of VRS. The prayer of the Petitioners had fallen in deaf ears and as such, the Petitioners have made this approach before this Court. 3. The Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 had filed an affidavit denying the allegations of refusing to grant VRS benefit to the Petitioners and stating that the Department was in the process of compiling more detailed information, necessary to facilitate clearance of the proposal of the Co-Operation Department and allocation of fund for VRS and clearing of debt. The affidavit also recited the steps taken for providing budgetary allocation since the year 2007- 08. 4. Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that there is No. dispute with regard to the fact that the VRS of the Petitioners have been accepted. The affidavit also recited the steps taken for providing budgetary allocation since the year 2007- 08. 4. Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that there is No. dispute with regard to the fact that the VRS of the Petitioners have been accepted. He submits that non-granting of the benefits of VRS have rendered the Petitioners destitutes and the grounds stated by the Respondent authorities for not releasing the VRS amount due to the Petitioners is not tenable in law. The learned Counsel also submits that in similar circumstances, benefits of VRS was considered and sanctioned to the staff of MARCOFED and Co-Operative Union, both organizations being similarly situated as UCB. 5. Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, there is No. dispute with regard to the acceptance of the Petitioners' VRS. However, due to difficulty in budgetary allocation as well as non-furnishing of requisite information by the Bank, the State Respondents are facing difficulty in clearing the proposal of the Department to allocate funds for VRS. Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland, further submits that the Respondents are hopeful of clearing the payment of VRS amount to the Petitioners within a period of 6(six) months. The learned Counsel has specifically referred to the statements made in their counter affidavit in paragraph Nos. 6,7,8 and 10 which read as follows: 6. That as regards the statements made in paragraphs 8,9 and 10 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that while admitting the letter dated 07-03-2007 (Annexure-D to the writ petition), the Respondent No. 4 by letter No. RC (Bp)45/2007-08 dated 17-09-2007 addressed to the Respondent No. 3 had initiated seeking budgetary provision amounting to Rs. 300.00 lakhs for clearing of institutional debts including the VRS and which was incorporated in the Special Package in the Revised Estimates 2007-08 and Budget Estimates 2008-09. However, the department could not find any provision under the required Head of Account for submission of the said proposal during the year 2007-08. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 4 by letter No. RC (BP)-45/2008-09 dated 1st September, 2008 had indicated the required provision of fund in the Revised Estimate 2008-09 and Budget Estimate 2009-10 under non-plan respectively. However, the department could not find any provision under the required Head of Account for submission of the said proposal during the year 2007-08. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 4 by letter No. RC (BP)-45/2008-09 dated 1st September, 2008 had indicated the required provision of fund in the Revised Estimate 2008-09 and Budget Estimate 2009-10 under non-plan respectively. Further under the directions of the State Government vide letter No. COP/VRS-12007 dated 3rd October, 2007, a fresh proposal was initiated basing on information received from the Urban Co-Operative Bank for payment of Institutional debts, such as depositors money and VRS which was incorporated in the special package. Therein, an amount of Rs. 12,84,305/-(Rupees twelve lakhs eighty four thousand three hundred five) only for 6(six) employees was earmarked for their VRS vide letter No. CIF-75/2004-05 dated 1st July, 2008. Be it stated here that the Respondents have again submitted a revised estimate 2010-11 and Budget Estimate 2011-12 under Non-Plan amounting to Rs. 174.45 lakhs for clearing of the said institutional debts such as the depositors money and VRS of the incumbent by letter No. RC(BP)16/RE-BE/2010/3624-625 dated 3rd November, 2010-11 which was incorporated in Special Package and a reply to the same is still awaited. 7. That the statement made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition are denied. The deponent respectfully states that the proposal in this regard was re-examined and a fresh proposal with the actual position was submitted to the Government for according sanction. Accordingly, claim of the Petitioners for VRS is under submission for consideration of the Government and No. denial has been made till now. 8. That as regard the statements made in paragraph 12 of the petition, the deponent respectfully denies that the department has denied to grant VRS benefits to the Petitioners. Further, it is submitted that the department is in the process of compiling more detailed information pertaining to accounts/passbooks of the depositors with amounts and related ledgers, the Memorandum/Articles of Association of the Urban Co-operative Bank, equity share of the State Government in the Bank and so on. These are essential to facilitate clearance of the proposal of the department and allocation of funds for VRS and clearing of all debts. These were not provided earlier by the Bank. 10. These are essential to facilitate clearance of the proposal of the department and allocation of funds for VRS and clearing of all debts. These were not provided earlier by the Bank. 10. That as regards the statements made in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, the deponent beg to state that refusal of granting VRS benefit to the Petitioners is denied and re-iterates the statements made in paragraph 6 of the instant affidavit-in-opposition. 6. Though in the affidavit, it has not been clearly stated that the VRS of the Petitioners have been accepted, the learned Additional Advocate General have submitted that the VRS of the Petitioners have been accepted. The tenor of the affidavit filed by the State Respondents would also go to show that the matter is getting delayed because the Department was yet to compile the detailed information pertaining to accounts/passbooks of the depositors with amount etc. In the representation dated 18-09-2007, it was clearly stated by the writ Petitioners that necessary application for VRS was obtained from the Petitioners and forwarded along with the proposal by letter dated 29-01-2007. The statements made in paragraph No. 6 would also go to show that by letter dated 03-11-2010, the Respondent No. 4 had furnished the requisite data of revised estimate 2010-11 and budget estimate 2011-12 under Non-Plan amounting to Rs. 174.45 lakhs to clear the deposit of depositors and VRS of the Staff. Significantly, in the affidavit, the State Respondents have also not denied the contention of the Petitioners that in identical fact situation, benefit of VRS was granted to the Staff of MARCOFED and Co-Operative Union. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland, I am of the considered opinion that the Respondents are liable to be directed to complete the process of VRS of the Petitioners including the payment of their dues within a period of 4(four) months from today. Ordered accordingly. The learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland, would suitably inform the Respondents about the order of this Court. It will be the responsibility of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to bring the process of VRS to its logical end within the aforesaid time. 8. With the above observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 9. No. costs.