JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred against the notice dated 26.09.1998 issued by respondent no. 3 [the Executive Director (P & A), Hindustan Copper Limited] by reasons of which the service of the petitioner being an employee of the respondent company, was terminated with effect from 30.09.1998 on the ground of closure of Musabani Mines on 28.08.1998. The petitioner has also prayed for his reinstatement in service and for payment of all consequential benefits to him. 3. Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 22.10.1963, the petitioner joined the service in the respondent company as an Underground Mazdoor. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to a sample copy of appointment letter dated 03.02.1979 (Annexure-1 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner), which indicates that the employee of the company could be posted in any other establishment of the company in India. It is further submitted that vide order dated 01.10.1997, the Government of India granted permission to the respondent company to close its Musabani and Badia Mines under the Musabani Group of Mines with effect from 28.08.1998. Thereafter, a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3113 of 1997(R) was filed by Musabani Mines Labour Union represented through its President challenging the decision of closure of the mines taken by the Government of India. However, during pendency of the said writ petition, the services of 200 employees were terminated including the petitioner vide impugned notice dated 26.09.1998. 4. It is also submitted that prior to the decision of closure of the concerned mines, altogether 2018 workmen were working in the said mines, out of which 834 workmen were adjusted in other mines, 626 opted for voluntary retirement and 31 normally retired. Subsequently, 325 workmen were also allowed to take voluntary retirement by the respondent company. However, 200 workmen were left in the said mines who were affected by the impugned notice of termination dated 26.09.1998. At the time of issuance of the said notice, the petitioner was working as Pipe Fitter. Thereafter, out of those 200 workmen, the termination of 161 workmen were recalled. Subsequently, out of rest 39 workmen, 37 workmen were also allowed to opt for voluntary retirement leaving only the petitioner and one Makra Patar, whose services resultantly stood terminated in view of termination notice dated 26.09.1998. 5. Thereafter, out of those 200 workmen, the termination of 161 workmen were recalled. Subsequently, out of rest 39 workmen, 37 workmen were also allowed to opt for voluntary retirement leaving only the petitioner and one Makra Patar, whose services resultantly stood terminated in view of termination notice dated 26.09.1998. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no individual notice inviting the petitioner to opt for voluntary retirement was given and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to opt for the same. On the contrary, the service of the petitioner was terminated in a most discriminatory manner as would be evident from the memorandum of settlement arrived between the management of respondent company and their workmen represented through Copper Mazdoor Union dated 21.11.2000 (Annexure2 to the writ petition). On perusal of the terms of settlement of the said memorandum, it would be evident that a condition was imposed so far as the petitioner and one Makra Patar is concerned to the effect that they shall be extended the benefit of said settlement as soon as they withdraw themselves from C.W.J.C. No. 3113 of 1997(R) pending before Hon'ble the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the outcome of C.W.J.C No. 3113 of 1997 (R) is not known to him, yet the said condition imposed by the respondent management upon the petitioner cannot be said to be justified. 6. In course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that due to efflux of time, the original prayer made in the writ petition for quashing of order of termination dated 26.09.1998 may not serve any positive purpose, yet considering the fact that the petitioner was discriminated vis-a-vis the other similarly situated workmen of the respondent company, at least the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme should be extended to the petitioner also. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the respondents refers to the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and submits that though there is no factual dispute in relation to the events which led to issuance of general termination notice pursuant to order of closure of Musabani mines as has been stated by the petitioner, yet he submits that the petitioner was given several chances to opt for voluntary retirement scheme due to closure of the mines, but he never applied for the same which was obviously more beneficial than the closure compensation benefits. Since the petitioner did not opt for voluntary retirement scheme, his services stood terminated in terms with termination notice dated 26.09.1998. 8. Considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the learned counsels for the parties and going through the relevant documents placed on record, I find that though the petitioner did not specifically opt for voluntary retirement pursuant to closure notice of Musabani mines, yet it would be evident from the aforesaid facts that out of total 2018 workmen working in Musabani Mines, almost all the workmen were either adjusted in other mines or were given benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme, however, the benefit of the same was not extended to the petitioner only due to the reason that he did not opt for the voluntary retirement scheme on time resulting into his automatic termination. 9. Thus, considering the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that under the said situation, the petitioner should also be given the benefits of voluntary retirement scheme as were extended to other similarly situated workmen and, therefore, I find it appropriate to direct the respondent no. 3 [the Executive Director (P & A), Hindustan Copper Limited] to extend the benefits of voluntary retirement scheme to the petitioner with effect from the date of closure of mines i.e., 30.09.1998. The respondent no. 3 is also directed to pay the monetary benefits of the voluntary retirement scheme to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The said monetary benefit shall carry interest @ 6% with effect from 30.09.1998, till the payment is made to the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.