JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. Perused the papers. 3. The petitioners by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, directing the Respondents to give effect of the office memorandum dated 06.11.2001 since 5.5.2000 and cover those employees like the petitioners under the modified/revised voluntary retirement scheme dated 06.11.2001. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they applied for voluntary retirement on 29.08.2001 and their VRS was accepted and they were relieved/released on 30.09.2001. At the time of their retirement, the policy pertaining to VRS issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries, Department of Public Enterprises, dated 05.05.2000 was in force and subsequently, the said VRS Scheme was modified by Circular dated 06.11.2001. According to the petitioners, they should be given the benefit of the revised Voluntary Retirement Scheme and more particularly, their cases should be considered for the purpose of ex gratia payment under the Revised Scheme. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submission, referred to and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Subrata Sen & others-versus-Union of India & Others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 71 . 6. The learned counsel for the Respondents by referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1 submitted that certain dates are relevant for the purpose of determination of the present case. It is pointed out by referring para 7 of the counter affidavit that the petitioners applied for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 29.08.2001 under the old V.R.S. Scheme, dated 05.05.2000, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries, Department of Public Enterprises (Annexure-1) and now they are claiming the benefit of the revised V.R.S. Scheme modified by the Government of India, dated 06.11.2001. It is further submitted that their V.R.S. was accepted with effect from 30.09.2001 and therefore, they are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit under the revised/modified V.R.S. Scheme, dated 06.11.2001. It is further submitted that their V.R.S. was accepted with effect from 30.09.2001 and therefore, they are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit under the revised/modified V.R.S. Scheme, dated 06.11.2001. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the Respondents cited the following three decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) A.K. Bindal & Another-versus-Union of India & Others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163 , (ii) Officers & Supervisors of I.D.P.L.-versus-Chairman & M.D. I.D.P.L. and others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 490 and (iii) HEC Voluntarily Retired Employees Welfare Society and Another-versus-Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and Others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 708 and submitted that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, once employees opt to retire under V.R.S. and accept the benefits thereunder their rights as employee come to an end and thereafter they cannot again assert their right and re-agitate their claim for pay revision under the revised/modified VRS Scheme. 7. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the material on record, it transpires that the petitioners are claiming the benefit under the revised/modified VRS Scheme dated 06.11.2001. It appears that the petitioners applied for V.R.S. under the old Scheme issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries, Department of Public Enterprises, dated 05th May, 2000 (Annexure-1). Their V.R.S. was accepted and they were relieved from the services on 30th September, 2001. It appears that the revised/modified V.R.S. Scheme came into effect on 06th November, 2001 as per the office memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries, Department of Public Enterprises, dated 06th November, 2001 (Annexure-5). 8. Clause 4 of the said office memorandum provides as under : - “The employees who have already been relieved/released before the date of issue of this O.M., shall not be covered under the modified Scheme.” Therefore, in view of the said provision, the petitioners who have been relieved prior to revised/modified scheme are not entitled to the benefit of the modified scheme. 9. Para 34 of the judgment in the case of A.K. Bindal & Another-versus-Union of India & Others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163 is relevant for the purpose of deciding this case, which reads as under :- “34. 9. Para 34 of the judgment in the case of A.K. Bindal & Another-versus-Union of India & Others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163 is relevant for the purpose of deciding this case, which reads as under :- “34. This shows that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in the business world it is known as “golden handshake”. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. If the employee is still permitted to raise a grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale from a retrospective date, even after he has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount paid to him, the whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be totally frustrated.” 10. I have perused the judgment referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Respondents. The judgment referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not relevant for the purpose of deciding this case and it is of no help to the case of the petitioners, as it was in respect of the noncontributory Pension Scheme. In the instant case, the question is with regard to the applicability of the modified V.R.S. where the petitioners have been relieved on acceptance of V.R.S. submitted by them prior to issuance of the modified/revised Scheme of the Government of India. In the instant case, the question is with regard to the applicability of the modified V.R.S. where the petitioners have been relieved on acceptance of V.R.S. submitted by them prior to issuance of the modified/revised Scheme of the Government of India. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the Respondents are directly on the issue involved in this case and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments clearly provides that the petitioners are not eligible and entitled to get the benefits under the modified/revised V.R.S. Scheme once the V.R.S. is accepted and they are relieved. 11. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court as well as in the light of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for. Hence, this writ application is dismissed with no order as to costs.