1. The petitioner is a registered Trade Union affiliated to INTUC constituted mainly for looking after the well being of its members working in the establishment of Nagaland Pulp and Paper Company Ltd. ('NPPC') which was incorporated sometime in September 1991 as a public limited company as a joint venture between the Government of Nagaland and Hindustan Paper with equity participation 12.5% and 87.5%, respectively. The HPC is a Government of India Enterprise under the Department of Enterprise, Ministry of Heavy Industry having two units, namely, the Nagaon Paper Mill and the Cachar Paper Mill. It has also three subsidiaries namely the Hindustan News Print Ltd., Mandya National Paper Mill and the NPPC. 2. The NPPC as a subsidiary of HPC started commercial production sometime in July 1982 but it soon began incurring operating losses. Eventually in April 1992 a reference was made to the Bureau of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR') under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (‘SICA'). It was declared a sick company and the Industrial Development Bank of India ('IDBI') was appointed as Operating Agency COA') for preparing a rehabilitation scheme for its revival. The NPPC stopped commercial production in October 1992 and since then its workmen are sitting idle. Some rehabilitation packages were formulated which yielded results. As a result, in November 1995 the NPPC was discharged by the BIFR from the purview of SICA as a sick company. However, it continued to remain under the purview of the Board for Industrial and Financial BIFR under section 23 of the SICA. Unfortunately, the positive development in the NPPC did not last long and a reference was again made to the BIFR in May, 1998 and it was again declared sick in August 1998. Ultimately the BIFR passed an order on 4.3.2002 for winding up of NPPC. The said winding up order was set aside by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction CAAIFR') on 20th April, 2006 and the matter was remanded to BIFR for passing appropriate orders in terms with proposal submitted by the Union of India. Then a rehabilitation scheme was filed on 17.1.2007 by the IDBI and thereupon a Draft Rehabilitation Scheme ('DRS') was prepared and circulated to all concerned for their consent. The BIFR vide its order dated 29.5.2007 accorded sanction to the said rehabilitation scheme. Then a rehabilitation scheme was filed on 17.1.2007 by the IDBI and thereupon a Draft Rehabilitation Scheme ('DRS') was prepared and circulated to all concerned for their consent. The BIFR vide its order dated 29.5.2007 accorded sanction to the said rehabilitation scheme. The Union of India on 17.7.2007 released fund of Rs.54.60 crores in the first phase for revival of the NPCC. 3. After receipt of sanction of fund, the workers union of NPPC moved an application on 22.5.2008 before the BIFR for payment of arrears of salary/wage of the employees/workers in terms of 1992 and 1997 pay revision. The BIFR vide order dated 22.5.2008 directed the NPCC to ensure implementation of the 1997 pay/wage revision to its workers/employees from the date of sanction, i.e., with effect from 29.5.2007. At that stage, respondent No.3, on behalf of NPPC issued a circular dated 30.8.2008 laying down certain criterion to identify the persons who should be prepared mentally to go on voluntary retirement. Another circular dated 2.12.2008 was issued asking the employees, who fall within the criteria identified by earlier circular dated 30.8.2008, to apply for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme CVRS') on or before 20.12.2008 by 5 p.m. And yet another circular was issued on 3.6.2009 informing the interested employees to apply on or before 20.6.2009 by 5 p.m. The aforesaid 3 circulars marked as Annexures 'G', 'H' and T respectively are under challenge in this writ proceedings. Before filing this writ petition, the petitioner union filed representation dated 15.7.2009 addressed to respondent No.2 apprising him that the impugned circulars have not been issued in compliance to the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS) and the sanctioned scheme approved by the BIFR, particularly under the head of "cost of scheme of means of finance" which refers only to VRS of 100 employees involving expenditure of Rs.350 lakhs. Without responding to above representation the respondent NPCC issued 106 communications dated 27.7.2009 to 106 members of the petitioner union informing that the sanctioned scheme envisages representation of 100 employees as the Mill requires only skilled personnel to operate the modern electronic gadgets and control system upon its revival. By the said individual communications the members of the petitioner union have been asked to opt for VRS with effect from 31.12.2008. All the 106 members of the petitioner union submitted reply expressing unwillingness to opt for the said VRS. By the said individual communications the members of the petitioner union have been asked to opt for VRS with effect from 31.12.2008. All the 106 members of the petitioner union submitted reply expressing unwillingness to opt for the said VRS. As such the members of the petitioner union are apprehending that their salaries would be stopped and they would be subjected to retrenchment or compulsory retirement. 4. Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, makes the following submissions - (1) The VRS floated by the respondent is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as it contains various terms and conditions compelling/forcing the members of the petitioner union to accept the said scheme under duress and as such the same is liable to be interfered with and set aside. (2) The action of the respondent authorities in trying to force the members of the petitioner union to accept the VRS amounts to malice in law and an abuse of powers in order to deprive the members of the petitioner union of the arrears of salaries for the period from 1.1.1992 to 26.7.2007 to which they are entitled under the provisions of law. (3) The impugned circulars dated 30.8.2008, 2.12.2008 and 3.6.2009 are ex facie discriminatory in nature inasmuch as the respondents have resorted to pick and choose policy in the matter of giving benefit under the VRS to the employees without any reasonable basis and nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Moreover, there is no intelligible differentia in identifying certain employees which offends the equality provision under article 14 of the constitution of India and renders the said circular liable to be set aside and quashed. As against 285 employees presently working in the respondent company, only 106 employees have been picked up and chosen without any reasonable basis. (4) The aforesaid impugned circulars are liable to be set aside and quashed inasmuch as the same were issued laying down certain criterion for identifying certain employees on the basis of sanction accorded by the BIFR whereunder respondent company has been allowed to rationalize 100 employees by VRS in terms of Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS) sanctioned by the BIFR. (4) The aforesaid impugned circulars are liable to be set aside and quashed inasmuch as the same were issued laying down certain criterion for identifying certain employees on the basis of sanction accorded by the BIFR whereunder respondent company has been allowed to rationalize 100 employees by VRS in terms of Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS) sanctioned by the BIFR. Moreover, the said impugned circulars have been issued in violation of DRS in as much as there is no mention whatsoever as to what type of employees and why any such particular type of employees are to be given the option of VRS. (5) The respondent authorities may be restrained from giving effect to the impugned circulars inasmuch as they have issued the same to deprive the members of the petitioner union of the benefits of the arrears of salary from 1.1.1992 to 26.7.2007 as per the revision of pay, for which they have been fighting legal battles since last 15 years. In order to achieve this objective, as submitted by Mr. Baruah, the respondent authorities have misused the OM dated 5.5.2000 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises, which provides that arrears or wages due to revision, etc., would not be included in computing the eligible amount. The respondent-authorities also taken advantage of the OM dated 8.12.2000 issued by the same Ministry which provides that in the new VRS there is no scope for computation of ex gratia on notional salary revision The employees of the petitioner union would greatly suffer financially if they opt for the said VRS as it would disentitle them to the arrears of pay revision for the period from 1.1.1992 to 26.7.2007. This is the real reason behind issuing the impugned circulars forcing the members of the petitioner union to opt for VRS which is violative of articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the element of force and threat should not play any role in the offer of VRS. Such scheme should be purely voluntary so that it turns to be beneficial to both employee as well as employer inasmuch as per the provisions of law, the employer can downsize the employees and likewise the employees can derive financial benefit out of the scheme. Such scheme should be purely voluntary so that it turns to be beneficial to both employee as well as employer inasmuch as per the provisions of law, the employer can downsize the employees and likewise the employees can derive financial benefit out of the scheme. He refers to decision of the Apex Court in HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and Another v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 708 , to show the nature, object, mechanism by which VRS contract comes into being, how the jural relationship between employer and employee com PS to an end by way of resorting to a special scheme like VRS, which is popularly called "golden handshake". The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to A.K. Bindal and Another v. Union of India and Another, (2003) 5 SCC 163 to establish his case that denial of revision of pay scale amounts to denial of right to means of livelihood guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Appearing for the respondents, Mrs. Mili Hazarika, learned counsel submits that the NPPC remained closed for last more than 19 years. The BIFR as far back as on 1.3.1994 opined that NPCC is not viable in the long run and thereafter issued a show-cause notice on 17.3.1994 as to why the NPPC should not be wound up. In reply, the Government of India sought time till May 1994 to communicate their views. She has taken me through the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents giving in details the various steps taken and correspondences made by concerned parties and authorities towards revival of the NPPC. But all the efforts/attempts made in the past to make the NPCC economically viable have failed. In the meantime, after change of economic policy introduced in the early nineties, the Government took decision that the Public Sector Enterprises CPSE') will have to generate their own resources to meet the additional expenditure incurred on account of increase in wages and that the Government will not provide any fund for the same. In the meantime, after change of economic policy introduced in the early nineties, the Government took decision that the Public Sector Enterprises CPSE') will have to generate their own resources to meet the additional expenditure incurred on account of increase in wages and that the Government will not provide any fund for the same. Hence, for the first time the Government of India issued OM dated 12.4.1993 removing cap on pay revision in PSEs providing clearly that the Management of the PSEs are free to negotiate pay revision of their workers but there shall be no budgetary support for increased wages and the managements have to generate their own resources from internal sources to meet the same. Under such circumstances, a revival proposal was submitted by the NPCC/UOI. Based on it a rehabilitation scheme was filed by the IDBI (OA) on 17.1.2007. Based on the said rehabilitation scheme ('DRS') for revival of NPPCL was prepared and circulated to all concerned for consent as required under section 19(2) read with section 19(1) of SICA. The BIFR heard all the parties concerned, including the representatives and Advocate of the petitioner union on 29.5.2007. The concerned parties gave their consent to the reliefs and concessions sought and accordingly the BIRF accorded sanction to the said rehabilitation scheme. The sanctioned scheme includes present proposal envisaging - (1) Financial restructuring, (2) Expansion, modernization and upgradation of production facilities, (3) Rationalization of labour (VRS), (4) Payment of pressing creditors, and (5) Captive Plantation of bamboo. 7. The BIFR, ultimately in its summary record of proceeding, which was attended by the representatives of the petitioner union, came to a prima facie opinion that the sick industrial company (NPPC) is not likely to make up its net worth which exceeded its accumulated losses within a reasonable time and, therefore, is not likely to become viable in future and, hence it should be wound up under section 20(1) of the SICA and forwarded the order and the proceedings to this court for necessary action. Thus, a Company Petition No.9/2002 was registered and an order was passed on 25.5.2004 winding up the NPPC making it clear that winding up order will take effect only after the order of BIFR attains its finality. The NPPC management preferred an appeal, being Appeal Petition No.86/2002 before the AAIFR against the BIFR's order dated 4.3.2002. Thus, a Company Petition No.9/2002 was registered and an order was passed on 25.5.2004 winding up the NPPC making it clear that winding up order will take effect only after the order of BIFR attains its finality. The NPPC management preferred an appeal, being Appeal Petition No.86/2002 before the AAIFR against the BIFR's order dated 4.3.2002. The AAIFR vide its order dated 20.4.2006 set aside the BIFR's order dated 4.3.2002 and remanded the matter to the BIFR with a direction to the union of India to submit its revival proposal to BIFR as soon as they get the final approval. BIFR was also directed to look into the revival proposal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said sanctioned scheme envisages profitability projection of the company on various grounds, including VRS for 100 existing employees and for implementation of the said scheme, the impugned circulars dated 30.8.2008 and 2.12.2008 were issued laying down the criteria to identify the persons for VRS in workmen category designated as Mazdoor/Sr. Mazdoor in W-1 to W-5. The allegation of the petitioner that the criteria laid down for identifying the persons are without any reasonable basis and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved has been denied by the respondents. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the third impugned circular dated 2.12.2008 was issued requesting the employees, who intend to separate voluntarily from the services of the company under VRS, to submit their applications for VRS on or before 20.12.2008 by 5 p.m., so that the intending employees' applications could be processed for their release w.e.f. 31.12.2008. As no application for VRS was received, another circular dated 3.6.2009 was issued inviting the category of employees as per the circulars, who intend to separate voluntarily from the services of the company under VRS, to submit their application for VRS on or before 20.6.2009 by 5 p.m. so that the intending employees' application could be processed for their release w.e.f. 30.6.2009. It is affirmed that all the 100 employees served with notice are unskilled who fall under the criteria laid down in the sanctioned scheme. It is also affirmed that there is no unreasonableness, unfairness or arbitrariness in the matter of identification of employees for VRS. It is affirmed that all the 100 employees served with notice are unskilled who fall under the criteria laid down in the sanctioned scheme. It is also affirmed that there is no unreasonableness, unfairness or arbitrariness in the matter of identification of employees for VRS. The respondents have denied that they have resorted to pick and choose policy in selecting or identifying 100 existing employees to opt for VRS. They have also denied the allegation that the impugned circular have been issued to deprive the members of the petitioner union of the financial benefits for which the employees are litigating for revision of their pay scales and payment of arrears w.e.f. 1.1.1992 to 26.7.2007. Further they have denied the allegation of using force or taking coercive measure against the members of the petitioner union for opting for VRS. 9. In this writ petition the following prayers/reliefs have been sought for:- (1) Issuance of appropriate writ, direction and/or order declaring the act of the respondent authorities in forcing some of the members of the petitioner union to opt for VRS and the impugned circulars dated 30.8.2008, 2.12.2008 and 3.6.2009 as illegal, unconstitutional and null and void. (2) Issuance of Writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside and quashing the impugned circulars dated 30.8.2008, 2.12.2008 and 3.6.2009, and (3) Issuance of Writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the Respondents to restrain, refrain and forebear from harassing/threatening the members of the petitioner union to opt for VRS and from taking any coercive measures against them for not opting for the VRS. By way of seeking the above reliefs, the petitioner union is calling upon this court to find out and decide whether the respondent company is forcing or coercing its employees to opt for VRS necessitating interference with the alleged illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents. For answering this question, it is necessary to take notice of the following admitted factual position - (1) The NPPC is a losing concern and it has been remaining closed for last about 20 years. (2) The BIFR has already declared the NPPC as a sick industry and referred to the competent company court for winding up under section 20(1) of the SICA. (3) The various initiatives/efforts taken on different occasions by the management, Government and other concerned authorities have failed. (2) The BIFR has already declared the NPPC as a sick industry and referred to the competent company court for winding up under section 20(1) of the SICA. (3) The various initiatives/efforts taken on different occasions by the management, Government and other concerned authorities have failed. (4) The IDBI as operating agency (OA) filed a rehabilitation scheme based on revival proposal submitted by the respondent No.1-company/union of India. (5) The said rehabilitation scheme prepared by the IDBI was circulated to all concerned for consent. A hearing took place before the BIFR on 29.5.2007 before whom all the parties concerned, including the representatives of the petitioner union, were present and gave their consent and whereupon the BIFR accorded sanction to the said rehabilitation scheme. (6) The VRS was floated after the rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned by the BIFR. (7) The impugned circulars dated 30.8.2008 and 2.12.2008 were issued laying down the criteria to identify 100 employees to be separated for VRS. The sanctioned scheme under the sub-heading "cost of scheme and means of finance" under clause 7 VRS expenditure for 100 employees of course, in the said scheme, the criteria to identify the employees for VRS have not been mentioned or laid down. 10. At the time of hearing, Mrs. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondents, makes a statement at the bar that all the 100 employees identified by the respondents are unskilled persons and they may be separated from the service under the VRS. A statement was also made by Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time when the Mill started in July 1982, there were in all 400 employees, 280 at the time of filing the writ petition, 256 at the time of filing the counter by the respondents and 241 as on date. If the said VRS is implemented by separating the service of 100 employees the Mill will have only 141 employees. 11. The impugned circulars seek to separate 100 employees on VRS. The laid down criteria to identify the persons are - 1. Workmen designated as Mazdoor/Sr. Mazdoor in W-1 to W-5. 2. (a) Employees with less than 3 years service, (b) Office Assistants with qualification below HSLC, (c) Attendants in W-4 grade below class X qualification. 3. 11. The impugned circulars seek to separate 100 employees on VRS. The laid down criteria to identify the persons are - 1. Workmen designated as Mazdoor/Sr. Mazdoor in W-1 to W-5. 2. (a) Employees with less than 3 years service, (b) Office Assistants with qualification below HSLC, (c) Attendants in W-4 grade below class X qualification. 3. (a) Peons in grade W-1 to W-3 with less qualification and/or no qualification, (b) Technicians and operators' having no qualification at W-7 or W-5 level. 12. The first impugned circular dated 30.8.2008 provides that the scheme would be implemented as soon as the Moll is signed between workers union and the Management. The employees who fall under the above criteria have been asked to remain mentally prepared to go on VRS. The second impugned circular dated 2.12.2008 asked the above category of employees who intend to separate voluntarily from the services of the company, to submit their applications on or before 20.12.2008 by 5 p.m. since nobody opted for VRS, the third impugned circular dated 3.6.2009 was issued asking the intending employees to submit applications on or before 20.6.2009 by 5 p.m. on close reading of the impugned circulars, one can find that no wording or language has been used compelling the workers/employees to avail the offer of VRS. The impugned circulars have no doubt laid down the criteria of employees to be covered by VRS, but it is only an offer that may or may not be accepted by the employees concerned. Even if some employees apply for voluntary retirement under the said scheme, it would not automatically take effect unless an agreement is duly signed between the employer and the employee concerned. The contract of VRS would come into existence only when such agreement is executed which will bind the parties under the terms and conditions of the contract. Before signing such contract it cannot be said that the employer has compelled, forced or coerced the employee to act in a particular manner to serve his interest. This aspect of the matter has been discussed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of India and Ors. v. O.P. Swarnakar, etc., (2003) 2 SCC 721 , wherein it is held that VRS is merely an invitation to treat and the applications filed by the employees constitutes offer. This aspect of the matter has been discussed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of India and Ors. v. O.P. Swarnakar, etc., (2003) 2 SCC 721 , wherein it is held that VRS is merely an invitation to treat and the applications filed by the employees constitutes offer. Admittedly, in the instant case, no application has been filed in response to the circulars inviting the employees to accept the invitation to treat. As on now no application has been filed by the employees to constitute the offer. The required "offer" having not been constituted, this court is not to proceed to find out the element of force or coercion in the invitation for VRS. 13. The allegation of use of force and coercion in inviting VRS has been made in the backdrop of the facts that the responding company, out of 241 existing staff, selected only 100 employees for voluntary retirement and issued applications in prescribed forms to 106 employees individually to separate them under VRS. The said action has created an impression and apprehension in the minds of the employees that the respondent- authorities are executing the VRS unilaterally without providing any option for it and they have been forced to accept the VRS. The natural questions posed in such circumstances are - (1) Whether the respondent-company is authorised to lay down criteria for selecting employees for VRS? (2) Whether the action of the respondent-company is bona fide, reasonable and without any arbitrariness? (3) Whether the decision to separate the service of unskilled employees and the employees with work experience and academic qualification below the standard/criteria laid down in the impugned circulars, has a nexus with the objective sought to be achieved? Much has already been discussed earlier about the story of losing affairs of the respondent company. It needs no repetition. Enough has been said already how revival endeavours in the past have met with failure culminating into preparation of Draft Rehabilitation Scheme and sanction of the said scheme by the BIFR with the object of revival of the NPPC Mill with modernisation and upgradation of its plant and machinery. It is on record that the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme envisages separation of 100 employees from the rolls of the NPPC. It is on record that the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme envisages separation of 100 employees from the rolls of the NPPC. It is also on record that the NPPC Mill would be incorporating state of the art technology with modern control and instrumentation system requiring a lean workforce with appropriate skill-sets and qualifications for which fresh recruitment of such skill would be made. The proposal for modernization of the plant, machinery and work force is a part of policy decision of the Government of India in terms of the changed economic policy of the country. The respondent-company is duty bound to implement the sanctioned rehabilitation scheme of the Government As employer, the respondents know better than anybody else what sort of employees they require for modernization and upgradation of the Mill. They must be given discretion to choose their employees and allow the other staff to go on voluntary retirement under the approved VRS. The nexus between the action taken so far by the respondents and the objective sought to be achieved is clearly found established. The unskilled, unqualified and under-qualified persons must be shunted out by way of VRS to make way for the modernisation of the mill. The management and the Government cannot afford to pay the idle wages for an indefinite period of time at the cost of public exchequer. The said unskilled and under qualified employees in the respondent company are a class who do not fit into the revival scheme through modernisation in plant, machinery and work force. Here lies the intelligible differential and the bona fide reason for separating their services from the ones of skilled and qualified employees who fit in the sheme of modernisation of the mill to make it economically viable in the long run. The reason for releasing the unskilled and under qualified/staff under VRS is found undoubtedly bona fide and reasonable that calls for no interference. 14. The VRS in question is backed by a public policy. The appropriate forum has already accorded sanction to it taking into consideration the larger public interest involved as against the private interest of few workers of the company. As observed in HEC's case (supra), the voluntary retirement scheme speaks of a package; one may either take it or reject it. The management Government has to declare the package for knowledge, consideration of and acceptance/rejection by the employees. As observed in HEC's case (supra), the voluntary retirement scheme speaks of a package; one may either take it or reject it. The management Government has to declare the package for knowledge, consideration of and acceptance/rejection by the employees. The financial package of VRS is not made know so far. The management is bound to do it soon. In any view of the matter, I do not find any valid reason to stall and/or interfere with the on going process of modernisation of the mill and the steps taken for implementation of the VRS. It must be noted that the sanctioned revival scheme includes downsizing of employees, which is also a part of the public policy. The writ court, as a matter of the settled position of law, cannot interfere with such policy matter and issue any direction restraining the Respondent Authorities from taking steps towards implementation of the accepted public policy. So I have no option but to decline to grant the reliefs as sought for by the petitioner union in this petition. 15. There is yet one very serious grievance, although it is not included in the prayer/reliefs sought, by the petitioner union in regard to nonpayment of revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1996 and from 1.1.1997 to 26.7.2007. From the averments made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner union filed writ petitions claiming payment of revised pay scale for the period from 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1996 and a single Bench of this court vide judgment and order dated 28.7.1997 allowed the same directing the Respondent Company to revise the pay scale of the members of petitioner union w.e.f. 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1996 as was done in the case of other units of Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. Writ appeals were preferred against the said judgment and order of the Single Bench. In the meantime, during pendency of the writ appeals, the BIFR vide its order dated 22.5.2007 directed the Respondent Company to ensure implementation of the 1997 pay/wage revision to its workers/employees from the date of sanction to the sanctioned scheme by the BIFR, i.e., with effect from 29.5.2007 onwards. The said BIFR's order provided that the payment of arrear of the salary/wage of the employees/workers with respect to 1992-1997 revisions would be governed by the decision of the High Court/other superior legal forum. The said BIFR's order provided that the payment of arrear of the salary/wage of the employees/workers with respect to 1992-1997 revisions would be governed by the decision of the High Court/other superior legal forum. As stated in this petition, consequent thereupon, the, members of the petitioner union have been paid their salary as per the 1997 revision of pay from 27.7.2007, the members of the petitioner union claim full financial benefit under the aforesaid revision of pay. Are they really entitled to this claim? A Division Bench of this court had an occasion to deal with a similar case in WA No.27/2007, WA No.512/1997 WA No.28/2007, WA No.29/2007, WA No. 30/2007 and WA No.31/2007, which were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 31.8.2010. It was held, amongst other that - (1) Workmen cannot, as a matter of right, demand an upward wage revision when the NPPC is suffering losses. (2) The revival package for NPPC did not make any provision for making the enhanced liability on account of any pay revision, and to face now such a huge liability on NPPC may completely throw the revival plans out of gear, making its revival all the more difficult. 16. The Division Bench, therefore, came to a conclusion - "whichever way the issue is looked at NPPC did not have the capability of meeting the contingent liability of arrears due to the pay revision claimed by the workmen for the period 1st January, 1992 to 30th June, 2006". 17. In view of the above judgment and order rendered by the Division Bench, I do not feel it necessary to deal with the same issue any further. It has been stated at the bar that against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 31.8.2010 a Special Leave to Appeal being SLP (Civil) No.(S) 33759/2010 has been filed by Mr. K. Imlitemjen Jamir and another before the hon'ble Apex Court and a notice was issued on 13.12.2010. The matter is still pending. The consequence will follow after the result of the aforesaid SLP. As stated earlier, the petitioner-union has made no prayer for payment of arrears as per the revision of pay-scale and as such this court is not required to pass any order in this regard. 18. The matter is still pending. The consequence will follow after the result of the aforesaid SLP. As stated earlier, the petitioner-union has made no prayer for payment of arrears as per the revision of pay-scale and as such this court is not required to pass any order in this regard. 18. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the petitioner-union has not succeeded in making out a case for interference with the impugned circulars and follow up action taken up so far by the respondents. Accordingly, no relief as prayed for in this writ petition could be granted. The petition stands dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. _____________