JUDGMENT Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions and Ms. Usha Barua, learned Standing Counsel, ASTC, representing the respondents. All these four petitions have been filed for setting aside the order dated 10.11.2005 passed by the Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Managing Director, Assam State Transport Corporation, for short, Corporation, whereby it has been held that the petitioners had been granted voluntary retirement dues under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and the letter dated 07.02.2002. It was also held that no further amount was due to the petitioners. In view of the above, since the writ petitions raise common questions of law and fact, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. A detailed recital of the facts of the individual writ petition, given the issues involved, may not be necessary. Suffice it to say that the petitioners and/or predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were regular employees of Corporation which was staring at a total closure due to financial losses suffered by the Corporation. Several remedial measures were taken up to revive the Corporation and one of the measures was relating to adoption of a VRS supported by Central Government. The pleadings in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit filed do not disclose the exact date on which the VRS was framed and brought into operation. The scheme was entirely financed by the Central Government as an additional central assistance to the Government of Assam. The VRS was also subject matter of WP(C)(PIL) 24 of 1999, which was disposed of on 25.01.2002. 3. To facilitate convenience, for the purpose of disposal of the writ petitions, reference would be made from the pleadings in WP(C) No. 391 of 2006. 4. It will appear from materials available on record that VRS had been effected to the employees in three phases. 5. The Writ Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising a common grievance pertaining to non-payment of benefits accrued to them under the provisions of the VRS. 32 Writ Petitions were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 17.05.2005. All these petitioners had obtained voluntary retirement under the Second Phase. 32 Writ Petitions were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 17.05.2005. All these petitioners had obtained voluntary retirement under the Second Phase. This Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 held as follows: 14. The whole purpose of offering the Scheme was to get rid of such employees in the 2nd Phase itself but the Corporation did not find much encouragement from the employees and the desired number of employees did not come forward. In the 3rd Phase however the aforesaid bar was abolished. That apart those employees who were facing such bar during the course of implementation of the 2nd phase of the scheme were directed to refund the salaries for certain period to make them cover under the Scheme. Under such circumstances, particularly in view of the total abolition of such bar in the 3rd phase, it is difficult to uphold the contention of the Corporation that the direction to deposit salary for a particular period which were deducted/directed to be deposited by/from the petitioners was validly made for providing them the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It has been submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to get the benefit under letter No. ASTC/HO/VRS/02/42 Date 7.2.02. Ms. Barua submitted the Scheme as it was originally formulated in which it was stated that the arrear salary were proposed to be paid to such employees for the month of May 2000 to April 2001, the provision regarding the arrear salaries should be maintained. In view of the subsequent modification of the Scheme, modifying the condition for acceptance of voluntary retirement, particularly in view of the negotiated acceptance by the Corporation on 7.2.02, it is difficult to accept the contention of the Corporation that the petitioners are not entitled to get their salaries for the period so far they are lying with the Corporation. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion it is directed that the Corporation shall pay petitioners the amounts, which were either paid by the petitioners for deducted from their salary so as to bring them under the scheme in the 2nd phase. There is also a reference relating to the payment of other items, in the letter dated 07.02.2002 and if the Corporation has not paid any of the amount mentioned there, the same shall be made available to the said petitioners so far the items covered therein. There is also a reference relating to the payment of other items, in the letter dated 07.02.2002 and if the Corporation has not paid any of the amount mentioned there, the same shall be made available to the said petitioners so far the items covered therein. So far, regarding the payment of compensation in terms of the letter No. ASTC/VRS/HS/2004/05/904 dated 04.12.2004 as claimed by the petitioners, it has been submitted by Ms. Barua that the letter was issued on 04.12.2004, and the same was not claimed by the petitioners. 15. From the perusal of the aforesaid letter issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation it is seen that there is a reference of the notification ASTC/VRS/69/90/E/108 dated 20.9.2004 entitling to certain benefit of Salary and DA. This provision has not been incorporated in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It may be mentioned here in that in WP(C) (PIL)24/99 the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 25.01.2002 granted certain benefit to the employees and the scheme was directed to be modified accordingly. The benefit of the aforesaid circular does not appear to have covered in the compensation item of the benefit mentioned in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as it exist now. Accordingly, this matter is left to be decided mutually by the petitioner and the Corporation. The Corporation shall take such decision at the earliest in consultation with the petitioners. The directions referred to above regarding the refund/payment of the salary and benefit to the petitioners shall be implemented by the Corporation preferably within the period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid direction, the bunch of the petitions is disposed of. No costs. 6. At this stage, it will be relevant to note that no salary of the petitioners had been deducted so as to bring them under the Scheme of the 2nd Phase and therefore, directions in the last sub-paragraph of paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgment do not apply to them. 7. According to the VRS, employees opting for VRS would be entitled to the following payments: 8. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 17.5.2005 the impugned order has been passed. 7. According to the VRS, employees opting for VRS would be entitled to the following payments: 8. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 17.5.2005 the impugned order has been passed. The order dated 10.11.2005, to the extent relevant, is reproduced below: UNDER CERTIFICATE OF POSTING ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI ORDER Read carefully the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the Writ Petitions Nos. 149/05; 1246/05, 978/05, 1248/05, 1247/05, 1243/05, 1244/05, 6614/03, 1245/05, 4731/03, 692/04, 2432/05, 934/05, 935/05, 936/05, 937/05; 1047/05, 1048/05; 1718/05, 1719/05, 1729/05, 1730/05, 1731/05, 1733/05; 1734/05, 1735/05, 1736/05, 1741/05, 2431/05 and also verified the accounts regarding payment made to the writ petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions under the Scheme (VRS of ASTC) and also as per letter dated 7.2.02 as mentioned in the aforesaid judgment. On verification of the individual accounts of the aforesaid writ petitioners it is found that all the payments have been made against each head as mentioned in the letter dtd 7.2.02 as well as in the Scheme. After proper verification of the calculations of payments made to the respective individual writ petitioners against each head of accounts as mentioned in the letter dated 7.2.02 under the Scheme, it has been found that the calculations were correctly done. In view of the above, no further amount is due to the writ petitioners concerned as claimed by them in the writ petitions. As regards to the letter dtd 4.12.04 it may be stated herein that the said letter was circulated for seeking option from the existing employees of the Corporation as desired by Government of Assam. The said scheme is not implemented in the Corporation. The benefits mentioned in the said letter are in no way connected/covered in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as mentioned in the letter dated 7.2.02. Therefore, the Corporation is not at all liable to pay to the writ petitioners any benefit mentioned in the said circular. Sd/ D. Gilfellon Managing Director, A.S.T. Corporation, Guwahati 9. The letter dated 07.02.2002 was issued by the Corporation to the General Secretary, State Transport Workers' Association, Guwahati after holding negotiation for VRS package pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25.1.2002 in WP(PIL)24/99. The said letter is also extracted herein below: To, The General Secretary, State Transport Workers' Association, Guwahati. Sub: Negotiation for Voluntary Retirement Scheme Package. The letter dated 07.02.2002 was issued by the Corporation to the General Secretary, State Transport Workers' Association, Guwahati after holding negotiation for VRS package pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25.1.2002 in WP(PIL)24/99. The said letter is also extracted herein below: To, The General Secretary, State Transport Workers' Association, Guwahati. Sub: Negotiation for Voluntary Retirement Scheme Package. Sir, Kindly refer to our discussion held today in my office chamber regarding the negotiation for payment to the employees, who desire to obtain retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as proposed by the ASTC. In pursuance of the Hon'ble High Court's order in WP (PIL) 24/99 dated 25.1.2002. As discussed we have issued a circular ca ling for fresh option from the employees for VRS as per earlier direction of the Hon'ble High Court vide our Ref. No. ASTC/MD/G/419/2001/3478 dated 4.2.02. We have called for the fresh applications as per the application form attached herewith. As per detailed negotiation held today in pursuance of the order of the High Court dated 25.1.02 the following benefits will be paid to the employees. 1. CPF dues both employees & employers contribution. 2. Arrear Salaries. 3. Unpaid leave salary, if any. 4. G.I.S. 5. Amount of LIC premium deducted but not deposited to the LIC or not yet refunded. 6. Unutilised leave salary to be subjected to the maximum of 240 days. 7. Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as amended up to date. 8. Unpaid sanctioned dues, such as medical reimbursement trip allowances etc. Arrear salary means regular salaries kept under credit slip. This does not include any dues out of revision of pay which are not paid to any employee of the Corporation. The unpaid sanctioned dues will relate to only unpaid leave salary and medical re-imbursement and trip allowance only. As you know that the scheme is entirely financed by the Government of India as additional Central Assistance to the Government of Assam, the entire amount will be paid from that account as per the scheme sanctioned by the Government of India. You are, therefore, requested to inform all employees who opted for VRS about this negotiation. Yours faithfully, Sd/ Illegible (R.C. JAIN) Managing Director, A.S.T. Corporation Guwahati 10. Mr. You are, therefore, requested to inform all employees who opted for VRS about this negotiation. Yours faithfully, Sd/ Illegible (R.C. JAIN) Managing Director, A.S.T. Corporation Guwahati 10. Mr. Sheeladitya has articulated that grievances of the petitioners are in respect of non-payment of: (i) CPF for two months, (ii) non-payment of arrear DA, (iii) non-payment of revised pay on the basis of revision of pay effected, (iv) ex-gratia, (v) non-payment of ex-gratia amount pursuant to Circular dated 05.10.1998 issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprise, Government of India and (vi) non-payment of bonus. 11. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel, has drawn my attention to paragraphs 9,10,11,12 and 13 of WP(C) No. 391/06. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that same claims are made with respect to other writ petitioners as well. 12. Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order dated 10.11.2005 is a very cryptic order and it did not spell out on what basis the petitioners were held to be not entitled to any further amount. He submits that a bare look of the order would go to show that prayer of the petitioners on the "Heads" as noted above has not been considered and reflected in the order. Therefore, he submits that in order to do justice, the matter should be remanded back for fresh consideration regarding entitlement of the petitioners under the VRS with a specific direction to pass a detailed order in respect of each of the petitioners. 13. Ms. Usha Barua, learned Standing Counsel, ASTC has submitted that the entitlement of the petitioners will have to be considered on the basis of the scheme based on which voluntary retirement was effected and on the basis of the letter dated 7.2.02, which was issued on a negotiated settlement regarding the package of VRS and which found acceptance of all concerned. Though she concedes that the impugned order could have been more elaborate, she has submitted that merely because the impugned order is not so elaborate, it will not call for a direction from this Court to the authorities to again re-consider the entire matter. She also submits that it is not necessary to delve into the individual claims in monetary terms, but what is relevant is the "Heads" on which payment is claimed to be not made. She also submits that it is not necessary to delve into the individual claims in monetary terms, but what is relevant is the "Heads" on which payment is claimed to be not made. According to her, the Corporation has not failed to pay the petitioners the amount due to them on the basis of the VRS and the letter dated 7.2.02. She submits that the letter dated 7.2.02 makes it abundantly clear that revision of pay which is not paid to any employee would not be payable to a person seeking voluntary retirement. It is also submitted by her that no deduction was made from the salaries towards CPF for the last two months for the sake of accounting convenience and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to CPF for the said two months. The accrued interest on CPF was calculated and paid up to the date of retirement. Arrear benefits like revised pay on the basis of revision of pay and DA which are claimed by the petitioners had not been granted to any employee and therefore, in terms of the letter dated 7.2.02, they are not entitled to the said benefits. Ex-gratia claimed by the petitioners does not form either the part of the VRS or the letter dated 7.2.02 and therefore, the claim made on that behalf is clearly not tenable in law. On the question of bonus for two particular years, she has submitted that Corporation had not declared and paid bonus for the said two years to any of the employees. It is also submitted that no reply-affidavit has been filed by the petitioners contesting the averments made in affidavit-in-opposition. On the above premises, the learned standing counsel submits that no case has been made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 15. No doubt, the order dated 10.11.2005 could have been more elaborate having regard to long standing dispute between the parties. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 15. No doubt, the order dated 10.11.2005 could have been more elaborate having regard to long standing dispute between the parties. However, having regard to the contentions advanced with reference to the "Heads" on which the petitioners claimed that they have been deprived of their legitimate dues under the VRS and the letter dated 7.2.02, I am of the considered opinion that sufficient materials have been laid before this court to record a finding as to whether the claim made by the petitioners are tenable or not. What the employees opting for VRS would be entitled to have already been noticed. The letter dated 7.2.02 maintains the benefits which were available under the VRS. There is a clarification in that letter dated 7.2.02 indicating that arrear salary which is otherwise payable, would mean only regular salaries kept under credit slip. This does not include any dues out of revision of pay which are not paid to any employee of the Corporation. The unpaid sanctioned dues will also relate to only unpaid leave salary, medical reimbursement and trip allowances. 16. In paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated as follows: 14. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 9 of the Writ Petition the deponent begs to state that whatever amount was due to the Petitioners on their retirement on VRS have been paid to them after proper calculation. In this connection the deponent further begs to state that since the fund necessary for implementing the Scheme of VRS was made available in installments, the Scheme had to be implemented in three phases giving effect on 28.02.02, 30.09.02 and 28.02.03. Since a large number of employees were given voluntary retirement, for the sake of convenience of accounting, the employees who were given voluntary retirement in the 1st phase their CPF contribution were deducted from their salaries up to 31.12.2001 and the employees who were given voluntary retirement in the 2nd phase i.e. 30.09.02, their CPF contribution were deducted from their salaries up to 31st July, 2002 and the employees who were given voluntary retirement in the third phase, their CPF was deducted from salaries up to December 2002. All the employees who were given VRS in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd phases were paid the CPF amount (both the employers and employees share along with interest) as per calculation made up to the date of deduction i.e. 31.21.01; July, 2002 and December, 2002 respectively. Since no deductions were made from the salaries towards the CPF for the last two months, they were paid full pay and allowances for the last two months without any deduction. The accrued interest on CPF was calculated and paid up to the date of retirement. It is therefore denied that any further amounts was due to the petitioners towards CPF as claimed in paragraph 9 and Annexure-3 series of the writ petition. 15. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the writ petition the deponent begs to state that the Petitioner has been paid full financial benefit as promised by the Corporation under the VRS and the Circular dated 04.02.02. In this connection the deponent further begs to state that Corporation has been facing acute financial crisis for the last 15/20 years and as a result, inspite of the best efforts, it has not been able to pay the monthly salaries of the employees regularly. The Corporation also has not been able to release the retirement benefits to its employees in time. It may be mentioned herein that because of such financial hardship, the Corporation has also not been able to pay compensation payable in the claim cases and clear dues of other creditors etc., in time. As a matter of fact, this Hon'ble Court while disposing the PIL No. 24/99 has been pleased to direct the Corporation and the Government to implement the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the Corporation as one of the remedial measures for revival of the Corporation. In terms of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in the said PIL, the Corporation has introduced the present Scheme. Because of financial constraint, the Corporation has not paid arrear Dearness Allowances as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition to any of the employees of the Corporation either existing or the retired employees. In terms of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in the said PIL, the Corporation has introduced the present Scheme. Because of financial constraint, the Corporation has not paid arrear Dearness Allowances as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition to any of the employees of the Corporation either existing or the retired employees. For the same reason, the Corporation has not been able to give the arrear benefits of the revision of pay to any of its employee's from 01.04.92 to 30.08.92 and has not issued any separate release order for payment of such dues to any employees. It is further pertinent to mention herein that the amount of arrear DA and the benefits of the revision of pay for the aforesaid period as claimed by the Petitioners are not covered under the Scheme. It is, therefore, denied that the amount mentioned in paragraph 10 and Annexure-4 are due to the petitioners towards dearness allowances and amount mentioned in paragraph 11 and Annexure-5 are due to the petitioners on account of revision of pay. 16. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition the answering Respondents beg to state that the Corporation has not adopted the Circular dated 05.10.1998 issued by the Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of India for payment of ex-gratia to the employees of Enterprises of Public nature. Further the Corporation has prepared and adopted the Scheme for VRS as a revival measure with the financial assistance of the Central Government after proper and detail calculation of the amount payable to the employees on voluntary retirement. The claim of the petitioners for payment of ex-gratia is not covered under the Scheme. 17. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition the answering Respondents beg to state that the Corporation has not declared and paid bonus for the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 as claimed by the petitioners to any of its employees and the said claim of the Petitioners are not covered under the Scheme. 18. *** *** *** 19. *** *** *** 20. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 18 to 24 of the writ petition the answering Respondents state that the Petitioners have been paid full financial benefits as promised by the Corporation under the VRS and the Circular dated 04.02.02. 18. *** *** *** 19. *** *** *** 20. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 18 to 24 of the writ petition the answering Respondents state that the Petitioners have been paid full financial benefits as promised by the Corporation under the VRS and the Circular dated 04.02.02. In this connection the deponent begs to state that whatever amount was due to the Petitioners on their retirement on VRS have been paid after proper calculation and they had accepted the same without any demur. In this connection the deponent further begs to state that the Scheme of VRS has been fully sponsored by the Central Government and the benefits under the Scheme had been offered keeping in view the fund made available for the purpose. The fund was made available for implementing the VRS so as to revive the Corporation that was on the verge of closure. Since the fund is already exhausted, if the Corporation is now required to grant additional benefits claimed by the Petitioners they are not covered under the Scheme, same additional benefits shall have to be extended to all the employees who have retired under the VRS and in that case there will be financial implications the burden of which the Corporation will not be able to bear because of financial conditions. 17. Perusal of the aforesaid statements made in the above paragraphs, in absence of any rebuttal to the statements made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners, would demonstrate in unequivocal terms that Circular dated 5.10.98 was not adopted by the Corporation and apart from that, the same was also not part of either the VRS or the letter dated 7.2.02 and that the arrear DA and other arrear benefits of the revision of pay were not paid to any of the employees from 1.4.92 to 30.8.92 and therefore, such unpaid dues and the bonus for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 will not be covered under the scheme. As the CPF amount was not deducted from the salary of the petitioners for two months, I am of the opinion that the petitioners would not be entitled to CPF amount for two months. Apparently, "Heads" under which petitioners claim additional payment, are not payable under the VRS and letter dated 7.2.02. 18. As the CPF amount was not deducted from the salary of the petitioners for two months, I am of the opinion that the petitioners would not be entitled to CPF amount for two months. Apparently, "Heads" under which petitioners claim additional payment, are not payable under the VRS and letter dated 7.2.02. 18. The petitioners have failed to place any material on record to show that letter dated 4.12.04 is applicable to the case of the petitioners. The order also recites that the scheme envisaged by the said letter dated 4.12.04 was not implemented in the Corporation. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this batch of writ petitions and accordingly, the same are dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed