Judgment : DamaSeshadri Naidu, J. 1. The present writ appeal is filed assailing the judgement dated 04.07.2005 in W.P.No.25810 of 2003, whereby the relief sought by the appellants herein for regularisation of their services as regular watchman in the respondent Corporation was rejected. PLEA OF THE APPELLANTS: 2. The facts, as brought on record by the appellants, in brief, are that during the years 1977-78, all the appellants secured their entry into the respondent Corporation as casual workers, to wit, Gunny Watchman. All along, they have been rendering their services in the operations of loading and unloading of food-grains and fertilizers in the Food Corporation of India (‘the Corporation’ for brevity). Initially they were entrusted with the duties of watchman in relation to loading and unloading operations of the Corporation. Since they have been directly employed by the Corporation, they have also been assigned various other tasks, such as maintaining tally books in order to prevent any theft or damage to the food-grains. 3. Ever since their recruitment as casual workers, the appellants have gone on making representations to the authorities concerned to regularize their services. Eventually in response to their representations, the General Manager, West Zone of the Corporation initiated proceedings in June, 1986 to absorb the appellants as regular watchmen and accordingly obtained their willingness in this regard. Despite the initiation of the measures, however, the authorities have not made further progress in regularising the appellants’ services as watchmen. 4. In the said backdrop, the appellants raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central), Vishakapatnam and also resorted to strike. Eventually, the management of the Corporation entered into a settlement on 14.01.1988 with the appellants before the said Assistant Commissioner of Labour. Under the said settlement all the 122 Gunny Watchmen were agreed to be paid certain benefits with effect from 01.11.1988. Though the settlement was arrived at, it was not a substitute to the demand of the Gunny Watchmen to have their services regularised. Accordingly, some of those casual Gunny Watchmen approached this Court filing W.P.No.5623 of 1995, which was disposed of on 18.01.1997 directing the Corporation to consider the case of the writ petitioners for regularisation of their services in accordance with the Rules. Accordingly, some of those casual Gunny Watchmen approached this Court filing W.P.No.5623 of 1995, which was disposed of on 18.01.1997 directing the Corporation to consider the case of the writ petitioners for regularisation of their services in accordance with the Rules. In the light of the disposal of WP No.5623 of 1995, the management of the Corporation proposed certain further benefits to be extended to the casual Gunny Watchmen stopping short of regularisation. Again some of the Gunny Watchmen filed W.P.No.20484 of 1997 questioning the order dated 14.05.1997 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation offering benefits such as re-designating the services of the Gunny Watchman under C-category with certain extended benefits. Eventually the writ petition was allowed on 16.03.1999, whereby this Court directed the Corporation to regularise the services of the petitioners in W.P.No.20484 of 1997 within a period of 12 weeks. Accordingly, the services of the said writ petitioners were regularised as watchmen with effect from 23.07.1999. In fact, by 06.12.1999, all the Gunny Watchmen, except the appellants herein, were regularised as Watchmen. 5. Since the services of the appellants had not been regularized, they made numerous representations to the Corporation including those on 28.08.1999 and on 15.12.1999 reiterating their demand to regularise the services as watchmen by applying the principle as laid down in the order dated 16.03.1999 in W.P.No.20484 of 1997, inasmuch as the appellants have also been similarly placed as the petitioners in the said writ petition. Since there is no response from the Corporation despite all the representations, the appellants have chosen to file W.P.No.25810 of 2003. PLEA OF THE RESPONDENTS: 6. Initially the writ petition was opposed by the Corporation by filing a counter affidavit, wherein it has pleaded that the Corporation was established under a special enactment called the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964 with Head Quarters at New Delhi and various Zonal Offices and Regional Offices at State levels apart from having Porter Operation Offices at various Ports, as well as the District level offices spread across the country. The officers and staff recruited by the Corporation are directly governed by the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. In addition to the regular staffing pattern, the Corporation has also engaged various categories of departmental labour for various other patterns like handling of food-grains and fertilizers received from the ships at Port Operation Office, Vishakapatnam. The officers and staff recruited by the Corporation are directly governed by the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. In addition to the regular staffing pattern, the Corporation has also engaged various categories of departmental labour for various other patterns like handling of food-grains and fertilizers received from the ships at Port Operation Office, Vishakapatnam. These departmental labourers are governed by the settlement entered into between the then Director General (Food), New Delhi and Vishakapatnam Port Khalasis Union under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for brevity). 7. It is further averred that as per the standing orders of the Corporation dated 17.06.1968 the departmental workers are classified into two categories, i.e., A-category and B-category, to which subsequently another category was added, i.e., Special-C. The management regularly enters into agreements with the Labour Unions in terms of the standing orders and those agreements are reviewable quadrennially. Among the labourers that have been recruited on casual basis, based on the length of their service, they could be allowed to migrate from the basic C-Category to B-Category and eventually to A-Category, having their service benefits increased proportionately in that order. It is further averred that initially when a settlement was entered into in December, 1988 in the presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vishakapatnam, all the 122 Gunny Casual workers were given the benefits under the departmental labourers category. Subsequently on 26.09.1992, out of 120 Gunny Casual Workers 12 persons were designated as Special-C category workers with all attendant benefits applicable to the said category in view of the regular gang vacancies then existing. In the light of the directions given by this Court in WP No.5623 of 1995 to consider the case of all the Gunny Workmen for regularisation, the management offered absorption of all the Gunny Workmen into Special-C category. In fact, the appellants herein accepted the offer and switched themselves over to special-C category and joined the gangs as the loaders. Those who had not agreed for the said proposal, again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20484 of 1997, which was eventually allowed by this Court. 8. In fact, the appellants herein accepted the offer and switched themselves over to special-C category and joined the gangs as the loaders. Those who had not agreed for the said proposal, again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20484 of 1997, which was eventually allowed by this Court. 8. In the year 1997, there was another settlement reached between the Corporation and the Vishakapatnam Port Employees Union, as a result of which all the 30 Special-C category labourers, including the appellants, were upgraded and designated as Category-B workers with all the attendant benefits applicable to the said category with effect from 01.09.1996. 9. With effect from 20.11.2000, as a matter of policy, the Port Operations Office at Vishakapatnam was closed. In the wake of the said closure, the Corporation framed a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2003 with the approval of the Government of India to dispense with the idle and surplus labourers. A scheme was also circulated in Circular No.13 of 2003 dated 22.09.2003. Though the appellants herein are eligible to opt for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), they did not chose to do so, but instead approached this Court filing the present writ petition. Eventually, the Corporation has pleaded that the appellants are not eligible to be regularised as watchmen on a par with the petitioners in W.P.No.20484 of 1997 since they have not been similarly placed. FINDINGS IN W.P.No.20484 OF 1997: 10. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned single Judge in his order dated 04.07.2005 held that the appellants herein and the petitioners in W.P.No.20484 of 1997 were not similarly placed. It is further held that once the appellants have opted for a particular benefit voluntarily agreeing to have their services categorised beginning with Category-C, and then, in course of time, on the strength of subsequent settlements entered into with the management, moved up to the level of Category-B, drawing all the benefits attached to those categories, they are estopped from contending that they are similarly placed with the petitioners in W.P.No.20484 of 1997 and that their services are required to be regularized. On the issue of applying the scheme of voluntary retirement to the appellants, the learned single Judge has held that they are regular casual labourers, and as such, the scheme will have definite application to them. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is filed. SUBMISSIONS BY APPELLANTS: 11. On the issue of applying the scheme of voluntary retirement to the appellants, the learned single Judge has held that they are regular casual labourers, and as such, the scheme will have definite application to them. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is filed. SUBMISSIONS BY APPELLANTS: 11. Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the appellants have never been absorbed as regular khalasis or as watchmen, and as such, the question of application of VRS to the appellants would not arise, inasmuch as the said scheme is to be applied only to regular employees. The learned counsel has also strenuously assailed the finding of the learned single Judge that the appellants should be treated as regular employees. The learned counsel has further contended that the appellants have never been appointed on regular basis and as such the Corporation’s efforts to apply VRS to the appellants is without any basis. Since the appellants clearly fall outside the scope of the policy of VRS adopted by the Corporation, the appellants have never laid any challenge against the said scheme. 12. It is further contended that, when the services of 97 Gunny casual workers were regularised in pursuance to the order dated 16.03.1999 rendered in W.P.No.20484 of 1997, the Corporation has resorted to a hostile discrimination in denying the same benefit of regularisation to the appellants. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the conclusion that the appellants have switched themselves over to Special-C category and later moved on to be Category-B workers could not be sustained, since the Corporation has not filed any proceedings to the said effect. In fact, even the petitioners in W.P.No.20484 of 1997 whose services were regularised, had also been designated as Special-C category workers prior to their regularisation, and yet their services were regularised. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that as the appellants did not approach the Court at the earliest point of time along with the petitioners in W.P.No.20484 of 1997, denying the benefit of regularisation to the appellants is invidiously discriminatory. In any event, the labourers whose services have been regularised, and the appellants, it is contended, have nothing uncommon among themselves to be differentiated. In any event, the labourers whose services have been regularised, and the appellants, it is contended, have nothing uncommon among themselves to be differentiated. The learned counsel has also submitted that once the appellants remained casual workers, Gunny Watchman being not a sanctioned post, the question of having their services regularized does not arise. On that count, the learned counsel has submitted that even those 97 persons who invited the order in W.P.No.20484 of 1997 had their services regularised only as Watchmen. Eventually, the learned counsel has submitted that the very stand of the Corporation is a contradiction in terms: on one hand, the Corporation opposes regularising the services of the appellants; on the other hand, to apply the VRS, the Corporation wants to treat the appellants as if they had been regular employees. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the order of the learned single Judge is seriously flawed and as such it is required to be set aside. He has further contended that since the appellants have been similarly situated as the petitioners in W.P.No.20484 of 1997, the services of the appellants are also required to be regularized. Consequently, this Court, it is urged, is required to declare that the VRS has no application to the appellants so long as their services have not been regularized. SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENTS: 13. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has stoutly defended the impugned judgement, dated 04.07.2005. He has contended that initially the appellants sought regularization of their services in the corporation. Later, during the course of conciliation meeting held before the Assistance Labour Commissioner concerned, some of the workmen, especially the appellants herein agreed to be placed under Category-C, which entailed them certain service benefits, thus placing them almost on a par with the regular workmen. Later, the appellants, along with certain others, it is contended, have been upgraded to category ‘B’, with more service benefits, including higher pay. As such, now since certain other workmen, who never agreed to be placed under any category, got their services regularised, the appellants, having all along enjoyed higher wages as well as other benefits, cannot turn back and claim parity with others. The learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the claim of the appellants that they have been similarly placed with those workmen whose services were regularised as watchmen. 14. The learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the claim of the appellants that they have been similarly placed with those workmen whose services were regularised as watchmen. 14. The learned Standing Counsel has further contended that the voluntary retirement scheme definitely applies to them. He has contended that, at the earliest point of time, the petitioners have given their option to be regular casual labour in Special-C category. Since the appellants have been receiving all the benefits in pursuance of the settlement, their cases cannot be considered on par with the petitioners in W.P.No.20484 of 1997. It is further contended that since the settlements dated 24.12.1988, 26.09.1992 and 26.03.1997 have been entered into between the Corporation and the appellants, along with others, under Section 18(1) of the Act, read with Rule 53 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. 15. It is further contended that since the settlements arrived at by the parties are of statutory nature, the appellants are bound by the conditions laid down therein. In fact, none of the terms and conditions in the settlements obligates the Corporation to regularise the services of the appellants. 16. The learned Standing Counsel has further contended that the Corporation has introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2003 to dispense with idle and surplus labour. Under the scheme it was made clear that if the response of the employees were to be poor, the Corporation would be constrained to take recourse to retrenchment of idle and surplus workers. Since the appellants are deemed to be permanent workmen under specific category, they are squarely covered by the VRS. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel has urged the Court to dismiss the writ appeal as devoid of merit. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, apart from perusing the record. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 18. In the light of the rival pleadings and the judgment assailed by the appellants, the following issues fall for consideration: (1) Whether the categorisation of the appellants’ services amounts to regularisation of their services? (2) Whether the appellants are similarly situated as the petitioners in W.P.No.20484 of 1997, to have their services regularised as a matter of parity?’ (3) Whether the voluntary retirement scheme as formulated in Circular No.13 of 2003 dated 22.09.2003 can be applied to the appellants? In re. Issue No.1: 19. (2) Whether the appellants are similarly situated as the petitioners in W.P.No.20484 of 1997, to have their services regularised as a matter of parity?’ (3) Whether the voluntary retirement scheme as formulated in Circular No.13 of 2003 dated 22.09.2003 can be applied to the appellants? In re. Issue No.1: 19. It is not in dispute that initially the Corporation engaged 122 Gunny casual workers in its Vishakapatnam Unit. All of them were extended the benefit of the settlement reached between the said workers and the management in December, 1988 in the presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. This settlement was followed by a quadrennial renewal in September, 1992. Initially, 12 Gunny casual workers out of those 122 Gunny casual workers were designated as Special-C category workers. The Food Corporation of India Class-IV Employees Union, Vishakapatnam Region, representing all the casual gunny workmen, however, filed W.P.No.5623 of 1995. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.01.1997 with a direction to the Corporation to consider the case of all the casual workmen for regularisation in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation. In obedience to the direction of this Court, the Corporation desired to bring all those workmen under Special-C category, which is said to be comparable with the post of watchman. 20. Be that as it may, placing of the said workmen under C-category would not have amounted to regularisation of their services, since the authorities have expressly refused to regularise their services citing various reasons. What was agreed to was placing the workmen, as a measure improving their lot, under Special-C category. Precisely in view of the inadequacy of the measure of placing them under C-category, as it fell short of regularisation, four of the workmen once again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20484 of 1997. Though the Corporation has contended, for the purpose of applying the VRS, that the services of the appellants have been regularised or deemed to have been regularised, the said plea cannot be sustained. The further assertion of the Corporation that the appellants were initially brought under Special-C category and later were further upgraded to B-category and thus it would be only as a consequence to the regularisation of their services also would not hold any water. The further assertion of the Corporation that the appellants were initially brought under Special-C category and later were further upgraded to B-category and thus it would be only as a consequence to the regularisation of their services also would not hold any water. In fact, the very contention of the Corporation in W.P.No.20484 of 1997, as was extracted in the judgment dated 16.03.1999, would amply establish that bringing or placing the workmen under Special-C category and subsequently upgrading them to be category would not amount to regularisation. It is profitable to extract a portion of the judgement, dated 16.03.1999, in WP No.20484 of 1997, which is as follows: "The order is challenged on various grounds. To consider the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the gist of the order dated 14.05.1997. The Chairman after considering the representations of the petitioners said that “keeping in view the long service rendered by these workmen and also to improve their earnings further, it would be just and proper to place them in the special ‘C’ category of labour who are on regular pay scale in the Corporation at Vizag itself as the earnings of special ‘C’ category workers are comparable to Watchmen and even better when work is provided. In support of the finding that the petitioners should be placed in the special ‘C’ category of labour, he has given the following reasons: i) The petitioners are casual ancillary labourers since 1988 and they have an assured monthly earnings of around Rs.2500/- in the absence of any work and Rs.4500/- whenever there is work. They are the lowest category among the departmental labour force at Vizag Port and above their category there are higher categories of labour as special ‘C’ category labour, ‘B’ category labour and ‘A’ category labour whose earnings and service conditions are superior. Therefore, elevation of their status to a higher category among the labour force would be a normal channel of improved prospects for such labour. He further observed that there is a ban on recruitment of staff posts such as watchmen in the Food Corporation of India and unless the ban is lifted it is not possible to make any commitment to offer the job of watchman to the petitioners and for making recruitment to the posts of Watchmen the procedure contemplated under the rules is to be followed. He further stated that absorption of casual categories in regular posts of Watchmen, have long term implications as in other areas the labourers may set up similar claims. There are other categories of workmen who are eligible to be promoted as Watchmen. Therefore, to consider the cases of the petitioners overlooking the claims of other categories of labour would be contrary to the rules and therefore, cannot be entertained. Further, according to the Chairman, if the petitioners are appointed as Watchmen, for the work presently performed by these persons as and when arises fresh labour has to be inducted. For the above reasons, the chairman says that the petitioners cannot be considered for appointment on regular basis as Watchman." 21. From the above extract, it is evident that the management has denied regularisation or absorption of casual categories into regular post of watchman on the ground that it would have long term implications, and that labourers in other areas of the Corporation might stake similar claims. Thus, without fear of contradiction, it can be stated that placing of the appellants under a particular category of casual labourers would not amount to regularisation or absorption. 22. In the impugned judgement the appellants have been categorised as regular casual employees, and accordingly are held to be covered by the VRS. We regret our inability to agree with it. In fact, the expression ‘regular casual employees’ is an oxymoron at best. 23. Lexically, ‘casual’ means occasional, incidental or accidental, as in casual expenses. Casual employment means employment which is not regular or continuous. It is employment for short periods or for a limited or temporary purpose. (P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s the Major Law Lexicon, Volume-2, 4th Edition, 2010). The learned lexicographer referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L.RobertD' Souza v. Executive Engineer, as reported in (1982) 1 SCC 645 , quotes the Railway Establishment Manual, and defines casual labour as follows: Casual labour. 'Casual labour' refers to labour whose employment is seasonal, intermittent, sporadic or extends over short periods. Labour of this kind is normally recruited from the nearest available source. It is not liable to transfer, and the conditions applicable to permanent and temporary staff do not apply to such labour. As such, it is imperative to observe that there is a species of permanent casual labour, especially for the purpose of removing them from service. Labour of this kind is normally recruited from the nearest available source. It is not liable to transfer, and the conditions applicable to permanent and temporary staff do not apply to such labour. As such, it is imperative to observe that there is a species of permanent casual labour, especially for the purpose of removing them from service. The piquancy of the position is apparent when the self same Corporation refuses to treat the appellants as permanent for other purposes. Thus, the first issue is answered in favour of the appellants. In re. Issue No.2: 24. It is to be appreciated that initially all the people, having been represented by their union, approached this Court seeking regularisation by filing W.P.No.5623 of 1995. On its disposal, the management came up with the proposal to place the workman under Special-C category with certain added benefits. W.P.No.5623 of 1995 was disposed of on 18.01.1997. The management came up with the proposal on 14.05.1997 to place the said workmen under Special-C category with added benefits. Evidently even prior to the filing of W.P. No.5623 of 1995, the management held negotiations with the workmen beginning from December, 1988. In the light of the settlement reached between the workmen and the management before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vishakapatnam, with effect from 01.11.1988 benefits like attendance allowance, weekly off, nine labour holidays with attendance allowance and contributory provident fund were extended to 122 Gunny watchmen. Later since the settlement was required to be reviewed once in every four years, again on 26.09.1992, the management and the workmen had another settlement extending the few more benefits to the workmen. The record reveals that even before the workmen union approached the Court by filing W.P.No.5623 of 1995, the appellants herein themselves opted to be placed under C-category, which offer was accepted by the management through its order dated 31.07.1993. Thus, insofar as the appellants are concerned, beginning from July, 1993, they came be under C-category. Their category was enhanced subsequently through order dated 18.06.1997 by placing them under B-category. All along, the appellants have drawn the benefits attached to initially the C-category and later the B-category. Only those workmen who have refused to be brought under any of these categories have, however, chosen to fight for absorption or regularisation. Their category was enhanced subsequently through order dated 18.06.1997 by placing them under B-category. All along, the appellants have drawn the benefits attached to initially the C-category and later the B-category. Only those workmen who have refused to be brought under any of these categories have, however, chosen to fight for absorption or regularisation. Accordingly, when the management offered them the self-same proposal of categorisation through its order dated 14.05.1997, only those who refused to accept the said proposal chose to file W.P.No.20484 of 1997 questioning the decision of the management to place them under a particular category instead of regularising their services. Consequent upon the judgment of this Court dated 16.03.1999 in W.P.No.20484 of 1997, when regularisations were effected, the management took into consideration only those workmen who have not opted for categorisation. Even the representations made by the appellants to the management make it amply clear. A portion of one of their representations, all of them being undated and identical in form, may be extracted to appreciate the stand of the appellants: "Further it is to state that some GCWs approached the Hon’ble Court of A.P. appealing to regularise their services as regular godown Watchman in view of their long rendered service as Casuals and the Hon’ble Court is kind enough and pronounced verdict in their favour vide reference list cited, and further another GCW also approached the Court on the same lines and favoured by the Court Vide reference 2nd cited. Besides that the FCI Management is also kind enough to regularise the services of all remaining 87 GCWs as per the list given by the Joint Manager (Opns). In that particular list the names of the 12 GCWs were eliminated, presuming that we were redesignated as Watchman on regular basis. In this connection it is to bring to your kind notice that only in order to overcome the financial problems at that time which we faced we opted to go as loaders.When all the GCWs were regularised as regular Godown Watchmen we, the 1w GCWs requesting your good-self to regularise our services on par with the regularised GCWs on sympathetic grounds for which act of kindness we shall ever grateful to you Sir." (emphasis added) 25. From the above, it is evident that the management regularised 87 Gunny casual workers since they alone remained outside the categorisation offered by the management. From the above, it is evident that the management regularised 87 Gunny casual workers since they alone remained outside the categorisation offered by the management. Even the appellants have sounded apologetic in their representation extracted above that they initially accepted the categorisation only in order to overcome the financial problems they had faced at that time, and that since all other gunny casual workmen had been regularised, even their case might also be considered on sympathetic grounds. Thus, it is evident that the workmen whose services were regularised in obedience to the directions of this Court in judgment dated 16.03.1999 in W.P.No.20484 of 1997 stand on a different footing from the appellants. In other words, the appellants are not similarly placed as the workmen who refused to be placed under categorisation and who eventually got regularised. A fortiori, when it comes to considering a request on sympathetic grounds, needless to say, it lies entirely in the domain of employer’s discretion. The entire course of action would have been different had the employer been required to act under a statutory compulsion. In the present case, there is, in the first place, no statutory compulsion, and in the second, consideration on sympathetic grounds merits entirely a different treatment. Thus, we are constrained to hold that the appellants are not similarly placed as the rest of the workmen whose services have been regularised. As a natural corollary, it is to be further held that there is no discriminatory treatment meted out to the appellants offending any of the multiple facets of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apart from any other principles of equity. In re. Issue No.3: 26. The scheme as spelt out in Circular No.13 of 2003 dated 22.09.2003 will not apply to labours working as casual workers. It may well serve the purpose if the circular, being cryptic, is extracted in its entirety: “CIRCULAR NO.13 / 2003 Sub: - Voluntary Retirement Scheme for FCI Departmental Workers working as Chennai and Vishakhapatnam Ports – as per DPE Guidelines – reg. 1. It has been decided with the approval of Ministry of CAF & PD to introduce a ‘Voluntary Retirement Scheme’ as per DPE guidelines for the dispensation / rationalization of idle and surplus departmental labour working at Chennai and Visakhapatnam Ports. 2. 1. It has been decided with the approval of Ministry of CAF & PD to introduce a ‘Voluntary Retirement Scheme’ as per DPE guidelines for the dispensation / rationalization of idle and surplus departmental labour working at Chennai and Visakhapatnam Ports. 2. Accordingly, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme framed on the basis of DPE guidelines is enclosed for its implementation for a period of 60 (sixty) days commencing from 1st November, 2003. The labourers who opt for Voluntary Retirement under this Scheme will have no claim for re-employment in future. 3. The above scheme may be given wide publicity amongst the departmental labour working in the above two Ports under your jurisdiction through the pamphlets published in the local vernacular language for inviting options for the said Scheme in the prescribed proforma. 4. All dues accruing to the optees for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme should be worked out in time and paid to them at the earliest and a Receipt be obtained from the individual labourers towards full and final settlement of his dues. 5. In the case of Visakhapatnam, the Voluntary Retirement Scheme will not be applicable to the labourers working as ‘Casuals’. The departmental labourers working at Visakhapatnam Port as well in the Vishakhapatnam Godown will be covered as they form one single pool. 6. In the case the response of Voluntary Retirement Scheme is not found sufficient for the dispensation of the idle and surplus labour, in that event the process of retrenchment of labour will be followed as per provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 7. The exemption from Income Tax available in the matter of such compensation will be governed by relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. 8. The instructions may be issued well in time before the implementation of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme for a period of 60 (sixty) days from 1st November, 2003. Sd/- (C.D.GUPTA) MANAGER (IR-LABOUR)" (emphasis added) 27. Clause 5 of the scheme has a specific reference to the union of Vishakhapatnam. It is stated that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme will not be applicable to the labourers working as casual workers and that the departmental workers working at Vishakhapatnam Port as well as Vishakhapatnam Godown will be covered as they form one single group. The first limb of this clause clearly bars the application of the scheme to the labourers working as casual workers. The first limb of this clause clearly bars the application of the scheme to the labourers working as casual workers. In the light of the answer given to issue No.1, the appellants are required to be treated as casual workers only. The second portion of the said clause that the departmental labourers working at Vishakhahpatnam Port as well as in the Vishakhapatnam Godown will be taken as one single pool would only indicate the administrative convenience sought to be achieved in implementing the scheme. In other words, observation was made as a matter of abundant precaution to ward off any intra-unit or intra-departmental squabbles on the status of the employees based on their work place or the nature of their duties. Thus, the first part of the clause may not have any impact on the second part of clause. Accordingly, it can safely be concluded that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as proposed in Circular No.13 of 2003 dated 22.09.2003 has no application to the appellants. CONCLUSION: 28. In the light of the above discussion, we are inclined to hold that the appellants are not entitled to the relief of regularisation of their services as watchmen, and to the said extent, the judgment dated 04.07.2005 in W.P.No.25810 of 2003 of the learned Single Judge cannot be disturbed. 29. Insofar as the second finding that the appellants are to be treated as regular casual employees to be covered by Voluntary Retirement Scheme, however, is required to be set aside, and accordingly is set aside, directing the respondent Corporation not to apply the Voluntary Retirement Scheme to the appellants. 30. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to the costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ appeal, shall stand closed.