JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 23.06.2008 whereby respondent no. 5 has rejected the representation of the petitioners dated 14.05.2008 in view of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6009 of 2003. 2. The factual matrix, in a nutshell, is that the petitioners, who were executives and non-executives of Bharat Refractories Ltd, now merged with SAIL, superannuated from services after opting Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the company, vide memo no. 2125 dated 04.09.1989 in year 2001, 2000 and 1999 respectively. It has been averred in the writ application that Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Govt. of India issued memorandum dated 05.05.2000 in respect of implementation of revised Voluntary Retirement Scheme modifying the calculation of benefits. Consequent thereupon, the respondent no. 1 circulated that modified scheme vide office order dated 18.09.2002 stating to be effective w.e.f 31.10.2002. Thereafter, the petitioners along with other similarly situated employees made a joint representation before respondent no. 2 for grant of 50 % ex-gratia payment in lieu of revised scale of pay in terms of modification made in the scheme, but, when it did not evoke any response, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 6009 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.04.2008 with a direction to the respondents to pass reasoned order in accordance with law. In compliance thereof, the petitioners again represented before the respondents-authorities, but the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioners vide order dated 23.06.2008, which is impugned in this writ application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent no. 5 is wholly illegal and arbitrary as it did not consider the scheme, regulations and notifications of Ministry. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that taking into consideration the equality, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Heave Industry and Public Enterprises issued office memorandum dated 8th December, 2000 and Clause 3 of the said office memorandum (OM) clearly stipulated that ex-gratia will be re-calculated on the basis of revised pay-scale and the difference be paid to the employee who have already retired under VRS. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Govt. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Govt. of India considering the hardship of employees of those PSUs’ where 1992 pay-revision could not be effected came with a scheme providing interim relief by way of 50% increase in ex-gratia by OM dated 06.11.2011 and subsequently by way of clarification vide OM dated 28.02.2002, Clause 5 of which says that “the Executive/non-executives who got the benefit of revised scale of pay effective from 1.1.1992 as per DPE’s OM’s dated 12.4.1993, 17.1.1994 and 19.7.1995 are entitled to 50 % increase in compensation.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that claim of the petitioners for ex-gratia is not tenable as they formed a separate class because of the cut-off date as envisaged in the modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the petitioners who opted for the voluntary retirement scheme under different scheme cannot claim any benefit under the modified VR Scheme. It has further been submitted that by acceptance of the VRS by the employees, the relationship between employer and employee ceased. Furthermore, there was neither any statutory provision which interdicted the position of cessation of employment nor the revised scheme of 2002 introduced vide circular dated 18th September, 2002 conferred any such benefit as claimed by the petitioners as scheme of 2002 was made effective for those who were on rolls of the company as on 18.09.2002 onwards till said scheme was operational. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on close scrutiny of the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts and reasons: (i).Several employees, including the petitioners opted for ‘Voluntary Retirement Scheme’ floated by respondents-company vide office order dated 14th August, 1989, which was operational till 31st August, 2000. Thereafter, the Board of Directors of the company floated another Voluntary Retirement Scheme’, which was notified vide office order dated 29th August, 2000 w.e.f 1st September, 2000, which superseded the earlier scheme and that was also remained operational till 30.09.2001. Thereafter, the scheme was again reviewed and finally a revised ‘Voluntary Retirement Scheme’ was floated by the company basing on scheme of Govt. of India, issued vide OM dated 6th November, 2001, which came into effect from 18.09.2002 and was operational till 31.10.2002. Thereafter, the scheme was again reviewed and finally a revised ‘Voluntary Retirement Scheme’ was floated by the company basing on scheme of Govt. of India, issued vide OM dated 6th November, 2001, which came into effect from 18.09.2002 and was operational till 31.10.2002. (ii).For adjudication of the matter, here it would be apposite to quote, Para 4 of the OM dated 6th November, 2001, Annexure C to the supplementary counter affidavit, which categorical stipulates that: “The employees, who have already been released by the PSUs before the date of issue of this OM shall not be covered under the modified scheme.” In the backdrop aforesaid stipulation, the petitioners are not entitled for enhanced ex-gratia purportedly based on the basis of office order dated 18.12.2002. (iii).Much emphasis has been laid upon clarification issued by the Ministry vide OM dated 28.02.2002 (Annexure 10), from perusal of which it appears that it does not in any way nullify the OM dated 6.11.2001 or contents of the said clarification/guidelines as contained in Annexure 10 in any way extend to Voluntary Retirement Scheme’ floated in the year 1989. Here, at the cost of repetition, it would be mention that the scheme of 1989 continued till 31.08.2000 and ceased vide OM dated 29th August, 2000, which the present petitioners had opted. Thus, the petitioners’ claim for enhanced 50% ex-gratia amount has no leg to stand. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.