JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - In the present writ application petitioner has prayed for payment of arrears of salary on the basis of Pay Revision from 01.01.1992 to 31.12.1996 with interest @ 18 % per annum; and for further payment of Compensation amount in terms of Rules of Voluntary Retirement Scheme on the basis of Revision of salary with interest @ 18 % per annum. Factual Matrix : 2. Petitioners were appointed some time in the year 1963 and worked to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned of the corporation and thereafter they have opted for Voluntary retirement from the respondent Company. The company has floated a Scheme in the year 1987 which remained in force up to 1990. On or around 20.10.1990 a Revised Voluntary Retirement Scheme was floated. The said Scheme was to remain effective for an initial period of one year, but, admittedly the same has been extended from time to time. It has been further stated that in pursuant to order in furtherance of the Scheme, the following benefits were to be given to the employees opting for Voluntary Retirement Scheme : "Compensation @ 1 and 1/2 months'' salary for each completed year of Service subject to the ceiling equal to the employees'' monthly salary at the time of voluntary retirement multiplied by balance month of Service left before normal date of superannuation". 3. It has been stated that the matter of Pay Revision was pending since 01.01.1992 and the relevant order of Revision had come on 09.10.1997 vide Circular No. 5 of 1997 vide letter No. WSA698. It is the case of the petitioner that he had served the Corporation for a long period and they received their entire retrial benefits except the arrears of salary on account of Revision of Pay scale from 01.01.1992 to 31.10.1996 and the amount of compensation applicable to its employees after retirement. The petitioners have opted for voluntary retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the Government of India. The petitioners were, accordingly allowed to retire under the said scheme and during their retirement the pay revision was effective and for this reason the petitioners were also entitled for the same as per the scheme. The petitioners have opted for voluntary retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the Government of India. The petitioners were, accordingly allowed to retire under the said scheme and during their retirement the pay revision was effective and for this reason the petitioners were also entitled for the same as per the scheme. In view of the scheme the petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities to grant the benefits of pay revision and the arrears of salary but the same has not been granted to them till date. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Nitiyanand Prasad submits that petitioners are entitled for the benefits of pay revision and the arrears of salary in view of the voluntary retirement scheme. He also submits that respondents are illegally denying the benefits to them though the petitioners are entitled for the same. Learned counsel submits that in view of their own scheme dated 9th October, 1997 clause 3.1, the petitioners are entitled for the pay revision. 5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Piyush Chitrish, J.C. to Mr. Rajiv Ranjan submits that as the scheme itself was floated on 09.10.1997 and the petitioners voluntarily retired on 10.3.1993 and 31.3.1994. Hence, the case of the petitioners are not covered under the said scheme as the petitioners were not on the Roll of HEC on the date the scheme came into existence. The counsel submits submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable in view of the fact that Clause 3.1 is applicable to retired employees and not to employees who have taken voluntarily retirement scheme and in view of that also petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of arrears of salary on the basis of pay revision. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this court is of the considered view that there is no illegality committed by the respondents, there is no infirmity in the order. There is no requirement for any interference in the writ petition. 7. Resultantly the writ petition merits dismissal.