Order Since a common question of law arises in all the writ petitions, the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The petitioners opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2002. They claim compensation in terms of Clause 4(G)(ii) of the Scheme. However, the claim of the petitioners was sought to be denied on the basis of the provision contained in Clause 4(H)(i) and therefore, several other similarly situated persons approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4125 of 2004 and Batch of cases. The writ petitions were allowed by order dated 09.05.2006 and the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by M/s. Bharat Refractories Limited (since then merged with SAIL) was dismissed by order dated 17.03.2010. The matter was taken in Special Leave Petition being SLP (Civil) ....../ 2010 (CC No. 14360 of 2010) and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by order dated 20.09.2010. The petitioners in the present batch of cases have approached this Court in the year, 2012. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in terms of Clause 4(G) (ii), the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation and for salary for 60 months. Relying on the order passed by this Court in the earlier proceeding, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that other similarly situated persons have been granted similar benefits and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for grant of benefit under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2002 in terms of Clause 4(G)(ii) read with 4(H)(i). 5. Per Contra, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that on a plain reading of Clause 4(G) read with 4(H)(i) would indicate that the provision under Clause 4(G)(i) provides for mode of calculation of the compensation whereas, the provision under Clause 4(G)(ii) provides for the maximum limit and the entitlement of an employee. He has further submitted that to give any other construction of the provision as contained in the Scheme would be violence to the object with which the Scheme was formulated, as in many other cases, there may be employees who have completed more than 30 years' service, still they may not get better compensation than the persons who have completed 30 years of service. 6. 6. I find that the provisions in the Scheme were considered and interpreted by this Court in earlier proceeding and this Court by order dated 09.05.2006 allowed the claim of the petitioners, who are similarly situated to the writ petitioners. This Court has held as under: “I have perused the Scheme. There is no condition in the Scheme, which required an employee to give option whether to receive compensation under clause (g) or clause (ii) or any other clause of the Scheme. As a matter of fact, the Scheme classifies the employees, who have completed more than 30 years of service and those who have less than 30 years of service. In respect to those employees, who completed 30 years of service, clause (g) (ii) read with (H) (i) is applicable and in respect to others clause (G) with (H) (i) are applicable. All the petitioners have completed more than 30 years of service with the respondent Company and are entitled to be compensated in accordance with clause (G) (ii) read with (H) (i). These petitions are, accordingly, allowed with a direction to the respondents to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners in terms of clause (G) (ii) read with (H) (i) of the 2002 Scheme and pay the compensation within a period of three months from today. Failure on the part of the Respondent Company to pay the compensation within the stipulated period, the respondent Company shall be further burdened with the payment of interest @ 6 per cent from the date of expiry of the period, till the amount is actually paid.” 7. The appeal preferred by M/s. Bharat Refractories Limited was dismissed and the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court where, after recording the submission raised on behalf of the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a case where the employees have completed 30 years, the question of applying Clause 4(G)(i) would not arise. In such view of the matter, the Special Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2010. 8. In view of the aforesaid, though there may be substance in the contention raised by the counsel for the respondents, it is not open to this Court to further adjudicate the matter. In such view of the matter, the Special Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2010. 8. In view of the aforesaid, though there may be substance in the contention raised by the counsel for the respondents, it is not open to this Court to further adjudicate the matter. In view of the order passed in the earlier writ proceeding, the claim of the petitioners are allowed and the respondents are directed to pay compensation under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2002 to the petitioners in the terms of Clause 4(G)(ii) read with 4(H)(i). 9. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since the claim was made in the year, 2002, the respondents may be directed to pay interest. I am of the view that the petitioners have approached this Court after a lapse of ten years and therefore, no order for grant of interest can be passed in their favour. Petition dismissed.