JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.S. Asthawadi for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms. Venu H. Nanavaty for respondent No. 1 and learned AGP Ms. Amita Shah for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Perused the record. 2. Petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court under Article 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with Voluntary Retirement Scheme in consonance with Government Resolution dated 27.11.1997 by the respondent No. 1 - Corporation. Petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the communication dated 30.03.2010 whereby certain benefits have been refused to the petitioner. Copy of such communication is produced at annexure A simply conveying the Managing Director of respondent No. 1, copy of which is forwarded to the petitioner and other similarly situated person; that they are not entitled to the benefit of revised pay scale as per the recommendations of the 6th pay commission. Petitioner has also prayed for directions to respondents to pay the benefit of 6th pay commission as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and thereby to pay DA, encashment of Earned leave and gratuity with appropriate interest as may be deemed fit and proper by the Court. 3. It is undisputed fact that respondent No. 1 is a Corporation owned by the State and, therefore, it is to be treated as State undertaking, wherein respondent was serving as Manager Accounts. It is also undisputed fact that since Corporation could not perform well, the Government has decided to close down the Corporation and, therefore, the State Government has introduced a scheme of absorbing the employees of such public sector undertaking, which are to be closed, in other department or to retire them voluntarily, by the Government circular dated 27.11.1997. 3.1 It is also undisputed fact that case of the petitioner falls within the purview of such circular. It is also undisputed fact that though petitioner has opted for choice of absorption in any other establishment, instead of absorbing him in any other Government department, respondents have granted voluntary retirement in favour of the petitioner by Office-Order dated 12.04.2006; copy of which is annexed at Annexure B. Such letter refers the circular dated 27.11.1997 and circular dated 04.08.1998. It is also undisputed fact that though petitioner has opted for choice of absorption in any other establishment, instead of absorbing him in any other Government department, respondents have granted voluntary retirement in favour of the petitioner by Office-Order dated 12.04.2006; copy of which is annexed at Annexure B. Such letter refers the circular dated 27.11.1997 and circular dated 04.08.1998. However, it becomes clear that while confirming the voluntary retirement of the petitioner by such Office-Order dated 12.04.2006, which was approved by the competent authority of the respondent No. 1, only disclosure made is to the effect that petitioner has been allowed to be voluntarily retired as per the scheme dated 27.11.1997 and retrial benefits payable in favour of the petitioner was released on the said day. 4. Now, therefore, we have to refer such Government Resolution dated 27.11.1997 which is relied upon by both the sides, copy of which is produced at Annexure A by the petitioner. The bare perusal of such Resolution makes it clear that it is not meant for the employees of the respondent No. 1 alone, but it is for all the Government employees. The Resolution categorically discloses that in fact State Government has initiated Public Sector Restructuring Programme (PSRP) and, thereby, one thing is clear that all the public sector undertakings are not closed, only because of financial difficulties, but it is the political decision to restructure public sector undertaking, so as to appoint selective persons at all stages. Whatever may be the reason for such scheme, the Government has realized that during the implementation of such scheme, if there is revision of pay by the Government, then the employee of such public sector undertakings shall be given benefits of such revision of pay. Therefore, there is specific Resolution in para B5(B) that the day from which the State Government revised the pay scale of its employee, the employees who are voluntary retired shall be entitled to difference of salary as per such revision and such difference is to be paid in cash within three months from the date of such fixation of pay scale in particular office. There is no answer or reply to such condition in Government Resolution by either of the respondents that if at all the Court has to interpret such Government Resolution as pleaded in their affidavit in reply to the effect that once any of the employee has voluntarily retired, and if pay scales are revised with retrospective effect, before such voluntary retirement, but order of revision is after voluntary retirement, then such employee is not entitled to benefit of such revision of pay scale. If the Government Resolution is to be interpreted in such manner, then why following lines are added in para B5(B) of the Government Resolution dated 27.11.1997 that except HRA; DA, Gratuity and Leave Encashment are to be calculated within three months and paid in three months, as per calculation explained in para B5(A) of the Government Resolution. Whereby it is made clear that the retired employee shall also be entitled to arrears of salary, DA, Gratuity and leave encashment as per example in para B5(A), wherein it is categorically stated that the arrears shall be counted for 35 days for complete years of services, in case of employee who is in service. Whereas in case of voluntary retired employee, the calculation is to be for 25 days per complete years of service. For the period between voluntary retirement till the date of superannuation whichever period is less. Thereby, it is explained that after petitioner has completed 24 years of service at the time of voluntary retirement only one year is left for superannuation, then he is entitled to 25 days salary for period of remaining 12 months of service and not for the period of service completed for 24 years. Therefore, it is clear that even after voluntary retirement, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of revised pay scale. The clause B5(B) in such Government Resolution is very much clear that whoever has voluntary retired pursuant to application to revision of salary, DA, Gratuity and Leave Encashment as and when and if Government revised the pay scale of such post from retrospective effect. 5. The clause B5(B) in such Government Resolution is very much clear that whoever has voluntary retired pursuant to application to revision of salary, DA, Gratuity and Leave Encashment as and when and if Government revised the pay scale of such post from retrospective effect. 5. Therefore, though facts are very much clear, unfortunately by the Government Resolution dated 12.02.2009 Government has categorically disclosed that benefit of 6th Pay Commission will be given with effect from 01.01.2006 and arrears of salary from 01.01.2006 till 31.03.2009 is to be paid as arrears and thereby when petitioner was retired with effect from 31.03.2006 i.e. after the implementation of 6th pay commission, though there is specific condition in Resolution dated 27.11.1997 respondents are denying to extend such benefit of 6th pay commission to the petitioner for some unknown reasons. The manner in which the effect of 6th pay commission is to be extended to the petitioner is though specified in para 5A, at present there is no dispute in calculation and, therefore, I do not intend to discuss it in detail. 6. The issue before the Court is on principle and conceptual understanding only that whether, petitioner who is voluntary retired after 01.01.2006 is entitled to the benefit of 6th pay commission pursuant to the combined reading of Resolution dated 27.11.1997 and 12.02.2009. The answer is already discussed herein above that Resolution dated 12.02.2009 has confirmed that recommendations of 6th pay commission is to be made effective from 01.01.2006 and difference till 31.03.2009 is to be paid as arrears and Resolution dated 27.11.1997 specifically confirms that if there is revision in pay scale then difference is to be calculated and expected to be given within three months from the date of such fixation. Therefore, practically pursuant to Government Resolution dated 12.02.2009 respondents are required to release such difference amount on or before 11.05.2009 but when respondents have failed to pay so, petitioner has no option but to file this petition. 7. In support of his petition in addition to Government Resolution and communication as referred herein above, petitioner is also relying upon the letter dated 04.08.1998 addressed by one officer to the other officer of the Corporation. Petitioner has also placed on record letter dated 13.08.1999 claiming difference amount payable to him with calculation sheet. 8. However, respondents have resisted the petition by filling affidavit in reply. Petitioner has also placed on record letter dated 13.08.1999 claiming difference amount payable to him with calculation sheet. 8. However, respondents have resisted the petition by filling affidavit in reply. The respondent No. 3 has filed one affidavit on 11.10.2010 contending that clause B5 of the Resolution dated 1997 provides for calculating retirement benefit on the basis of recommendations of 5th pay commission who has sought voluntary retirement under such scheme. Irrespective of other defence, prima facie it becomes clear that such disclosure on oath is misinterpreting the relevant clause and thereby practically misguiding the Court by Government officer on oath. 8.1 It cannot be ignored that, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has on date 22.11.2010 passed following order, which is reproduced herein below, whereby the respondent has no option but to file another affidavit dated 19.12.2010 tendering unconditional apology stating that it was a mistake in the affidavit dated 11.10.2010, it was further contended that there was no intention to mislead the Court. Order dated 22.11.2010 reads as under: "Mr. A.S. Asthavadi, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by Clause- B-5(b) of Circular dated 27.11.1997, whereby, the respondent-Corporation has adopted the policy of the State Government regarding revision of pay-scales in respect of voluntary retirement of its employees. It is further submitted that the State Government, by Resolution dated 12.02.2009, has adopted the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006, whereas, the petitioners were permitted to retire voluntarily, by order of different dates. For instance, petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 10018 of 2010 retired voluntarily by order dated 12.04.2006 passed by the respondent-Corporation. Mr. Anand L. Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply filed by respondent No. 3, on the affidavit of Shri Paras Kishorchandra Sanghvi, Under Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department, affirmed on 11.10.2010 and has submitted that the petitioners have been paid benefits as per the Fifth Pay Commission which was applicable on the date of their voluntary retirement. On perusing Clause B-5(b) of the Circular dated 27.11.1997, in juxtaposition with the averments made in Paragraph-5 of the reply filed by respondent No. 3, it is noticed that respondent No. 3 has stated thus: "......Clause B(v)(b) of the said circular provides for granting retirement benefits on the basis of the recommendations of the 5th pay commission to the employee who has sought voluntary retirement under this scheme...... " However, the words "recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission" are nowhere mentioned in the said clause and appear to have been deliberately introduced by the deponent of the said affidavit, in order to give a different colour to the case. If the deponent offers his own interpretation of the clause, it is a different matter, but he cannot take the liberty to tamper with the exact and specific wordings of the said clause, in order to alter its meaning. The Circular is issued by the Government and its words cannot be changed, to the advantage of the State Government or disadvantage of the petitioners, by introducing words that are not mentioned in the said clause. The learned Assistant Government Pleader is directed to bring this unfortunate state of affairs to the notice of the Secretary, Roads and Buildings Department and report as to what remedial measures are to be taken, if any, by the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, Mr. H.J. Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 may file an affidavit-in-reply. List on 03.12.2010." 8.2 In addition to such blunder, if we peruse the affidavit in reply dated 11.10.2010 there is specific disclosure that due to exigency, petitioner herein was continued in the respondent Corporation till retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme. But unfortunately, in the same paragraph when above referred mistake has taken place and where above disclosure is made it is the say of the deponent that provisions of such clause is incorporated only for the employee, who retired voluntarily. Therefore, respondents are making a show that present petitioner was not retired voluntarily. However, it is also emphasized that though petitioner was retired on 01.06.2006 he was never given benefit of 5th pay commission and, therefore, he could not be given the benefit of 6th pay commission. Now Government has to follow 5B of the Government Resolution dated 27.11.1997. Therefore, respondents are making a show that present petitioner was not retired voluntarily. However, it is also emphasized that though petitioner was retired on 01.06.2006 he was never given benefit of 5th pay commission and, therefore, he could not be given the benefit of 6th pay commission. Now Government has to follow 5B of the Government Resolution dated 27.11.1997. Whereas respondents have failed to realize that while allowing the voluntarily retirement, benefit of 5th pay commission was already extended to the petitioner and now he is entitled for the 6th pay commission since he has retired on 31.03.2006. 8.3 Unfortunately now by affidavit dated 09.12.2010 respondent has on the contrary came with another explanation that petitioner was given notional benefit of recommendations of 5th Pay Commission. Surprisingly, it was stated that as per Government Resolution dated 27.11.1997, the benefit of clause B5(B) is to be given for the benefit of 5th pay commission and not for the benefit of 6th pay commission, since it was made effective from 01.01.2006. Respondents have failed to realize that resolution dated 27.11.1997 nowhere restricted the implementation of 6th pay commission, but it is in general. Therefore also in fact by this affidavit, on one side respondents are trying to explain their misdeed and, therefore, it is required to take them at task. However, it will delay the real cause raised in this petition. Respondent should be vigilant while filing affidavit on record of the Court and thereby they should restrain themselves from interpreting the Government Resolution in their own manner which is otherwise against basic disclosure in this Resolution itself. 9. Petitioner has filed an affidavit in rejoinder, wherein now it has been categorically disclosed that though he had opted for absorption of his service in any other establishment, he was granted voluntary retirement and to the best of his knowledge, even on the date of such affidavit, respondent - Corporation is functioning. Therefore it cannot be said that he has not complained in time as per circular dated 27.11.1997 when petitioner has required to work till he is voluntarily retired on 31.03.2006. Therefore it cannot be said that he has not complained in time as per circular dated 27.11.1997 when petitioner has required to work till he is voluntarily retired on 31.03.2006. Therefore, if petitioner was allowed to be absorbed in any other Government department then he should have certainly got the benefit of 5th and 6th pay commission in his regular service and, therefore, respondent cannot say that petitioner was not entitled to 6th pay commission though he was to work till 31.03.2006 and it was implemented from 01.01.2006. 10. Whereas respondent No. 1 has filed their affidavit in reply dated 08.12.2010 and tried to interpret the concerned Government Resolution dated 27.11.1997 contending that at the relevant time, the benefit of 5th pay commission was extended to those employees of the Government who have opted for voluntarily retirement scheme. Unfortunately, respondents have failed to realize that they have allowed the petitioner to work upto 31.03.2006 and, therefore, they cannot say that petitioner was not entitled to 6th pay commission which was effective from 01.01.2006, only because, the effect of 6th pay commission was declared on 27.02.2009, when petitioner was not working in the Corporation. If it is so, even at the cost of repetition, in that case, all the respondents have to specifically come forward to explain and disclose that if the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit claimed by him then who will be entitled for the benefit as disclosed in B5(B) of the Resolution dated 27.11.1997. It is certain that none of the respondent has dared to clarify that which class of employees would be entitled to what benefit pursuant to such condition in Government Resolution. It is clear and obvious that such benefit was extended to the persons like present petitioner. 10.1 Respondent No. 1 is relying upon communication dated 30.07.1998 addressed by one of the Government Officer to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. However it nowhere restricts the right which is accrued in favour of the petitioner. It is undisputed and admitted fact by respondent No. 1 that Corporation has to function on account of pendency of litigation under the Arbitration Act and other administrative work including finance etc. However it nowhere restricts the right which is accrued in favour of the petitioner. It is undisputed and admitted fact by respondent No. 1 that Corporation has to function on account of pendency of litigation under the Arbitration Act and other administrative work including finance etc. Therefore, if for any reason, the Corporation is functioning with limited staff and if petitioner was allowed to work till 31.03.2006 then it cannot be said that petitioner has to follow the time schedule as per letter dated 30.07.1998, otherwise he is not entitled to any benefit. 11. Irrespective of such Government Resolution, it is settled legal position that the facts disclosed in communication are only interpretation of particular Government Resolution by concerned officers but otherwise unless those facts are proved by the Government, those facts which are disclosed in letter cannot be relied upon, against the provisions of the Government Resolution. 11.1 Surprisingly, when respondents are relying upon such communication dated 30.07.1998, it becomes clear that they never disclosed such communication to the public at large since such communication is having endorsement as "Secret." 11.2 Though respondents have annexed Government Resolution dated 23.03.1998 with their reply dated 09.12.2010 which is regarding revision of pay and service condition of employees of public sector undertakings. However, the fact remains that on the contrary para 2(B)(IV); of such Resolution confirms that the undertakings started for closure may consider the matter as per the provisions of Circular dated 27.11.1997. Therefore, there is no change in scheme dated 27.11.1997, thereafter at any point of time so as to negativate the claim and benefit sought for by the petitioner. 12. In view of above facts and circumstances when respondents could not point out to whom the benefit of second part of condition No. B5(B) is to be extended, it becomes clear that there is condition of extending revision of pay scale of Government employee even in case of closing of public undertaking, even if employee has voluntarily retired and, therefore, considering the fact of this case when recommendations of 6th pay commission was made effective from 01.01.2006 and when petitioner was permitted to be retired on 31.03.2006 only because of the closure of respondent No. 1, it cannot be said that petitioner is not entitled to the benefit as per clause B5(B) of Circular dated 27.11.1997. 12.1 It is also clear that though Government Resolution allowed the recommendations of 6th pay commission is issued in the year 2009 when recommendations were made effective from 01.01.2006 and, therefore, when petitioner was on duty till 31.03.2006 he is certainly entitled to the benefits of recommendations of 6th pay commission. 13. In view of above facts and circumstances, petition is allowed as prayed for. Communication dated 30.03.2010 at Annexure E is hereby quashed and set aside. Thereby petitioner is entitled to the difference of salary, DA, Gratuity, leave encashment as per the recommendations of 6th pay commission and, therefore, respondent shall calculate such amount and shall release the same within 4 months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Respondent shall also pay 6% interest on such amount from 12.05.2009 till the actual payment. However, if such payment is not made within 4 months, then the amount shall carry 9% interest. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.