JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta and Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ appeal, as the cause title goes, is preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2015 passed in Review Petition No.75/2015 arising out of judgment and order dated 27.03.2014 passed in WP(C) No.2179/2013. The Review Petition No. 75/2015 was not preferred by the appellant, but was preferred by Assam Government Construction Corporation Ltd. (AGCCL) and the Managing Director of AGCCL. The prayer portion of the memo of appeal goes to show that the appellant has prayed for quashing of the judgment dated 27.03.2014 passed in WP(C) No.2179/2013. 3. The petitioners were erstwhile employees of AGCCL and the writ petitioners, 54 in numbers, had rendered service varying from 20 years to 30 years in different capacities. The case of the writ petitioners, in a nutshell, was that they were compelled to accept a voluntary retirement scheme proposal offered by the AGCCL in terms of general notice dated 18.10.2005. 4. By filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioners had sought for quashing of Notification dated 15.02.2006 issued by the Department of Public Enterprises, Government of Assam, whereby entitlement of 30 days exgratia was reduced to 15 days. 5. The appellant did not file any affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition. 6. The notice dated 18.10.2005 reads as follows:- "Notice In concurrence of the Cabinet memorandum dated 23/8/05 vide No.PE/31/2005/72 dated 31.08.05 and in pursuance of the PWD's letter No. ADT/443/2001/Pt/17 dtd. 14/9/05. The management of the AGCC Ltd. has decided to close the Corporation with immediate effect after observing all the statutory formalities of the corporation. In view of the above, and in pursuance of the Govt. letters stated above, the VRS is offered to the staff of the Corporation as per AAIDC Model as implemented in this Corporation earlier and accordingly all the employees of the corporation are asked to submit their VRS applications to the undersigned within 10th Nov./2005 so as to finalise their admissible dues as mentioned below. Here it is to be noted that the employees those who are not applying the VRS will have to be retrenched as per the rules as decided by the Govt. Here it is to be noted that the employees those who are not applying the VRS will have to be retrenched as per the rules as decided by the Govt. and in such cases, the retrenched employees will get only the retrenchment benefit as per the rule. Benefits of VRS A. (i) Ex-gratia. (ii) Gratuity As per the AAIDC Model in existence (iii) Leave encashment B. Admissible ECPF money C. Pending unpaid salary The employees who have already applied for VRS in the corporation against the Notification No.AGCC/GC/8/83/Pt-I/281 dated 29/4/05 need not apply further. Sd/- Managing Director, Assam Govt. Const. Corporation Ltd., Rupnagar, Guwahati-32" 7. A perusal of the said notice goes to show that the Management of the AGCCL had decided to close AGCCL with immediate effect and, therefore, VRS was offered to the staff of the Corporation as per the Assam Agro Industries Development Corporation (AAIDC) Model as implemented in AGCCL earlier and accordingly, all the employees of AGCCL were asked to submit their voluntary retirement application to the Managing Director within 10.11.2005 so as to finalise their admissible dues. It was also indicated that those who did not apply for voluntary retirement would be retrenched and they would only be granted retrenchment benefit. 8. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, held as follows:- "As indicated above, as per the said notice dated 18.10.2005, amongst various benefits of VRS provided to the employees, it was declared that ex-gratia would be paid as per AAIDC model in existence and as per the AAIDC model as on 18.10.2005, ex-gratia payment which was initially of 45 days was reduced and limited to 30 days when the State had taken a policy decision to close down the loss making State Government Undertakings such as AGCC. As a cabinet decision was already taken to close down the same, the employees of AGCC including the petitioners had no other alternative but to accept the VRS proposal that was placed before them. They simply had no other option. In the circumstances, the general notice dated 18.10.2005 declaring the benefits of VRS that would be provided to the employees of AGCC was clearly in the nature of a promise which as the subsequent events have shown was acted upon by the petitioners by accepting the VRS proposal thereby altering their position. They simply had no other option. In the circumstances, the general notice dated 18.10.2005 declaring the benefits of VRS that would be provided to the employees of AGCC was clearly in the nature of a promise which as the subsequent events have shown was acted upon by the petitioners by accepting the VRS proposal thereby altering their position. The VRS proposal of which the ex-gratia was one of the components thus could not have been changed to the prejudice of the petitioners once it was acted upon. In the circumstances, the source of funding to meet the VRS liabilities would not be of much relevance. When the Government of Assam in the Department of Public Enterprises issued notification dated 15.2.2006 reducing ex-gratia from 30 days to 15 days, the same could not have been made applicable in respect of the petitioners who had already gone on VRS acting on the notice dated 18.10.2005. This notification dated 15.2.2006 thus could not have been given effect to retrospectively to cover the case of the petitioners. Having regard to the above, Court is of the view that the aforesaid notification dated 15.2.2006 particularly in respect of reduction of ex-gratia from 30 days to 15 days could not have been applied to the case of the petitioners. Petitioners are entitled to the ex-gratia payment in terms of general notice dated 18.10.2005. Accordingly and in the light of the discussions made above, respondents are directed to release the balance ex-gratia payment of the petitioners in terms of the notice dated 18.10.2005 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition is allowed. No cost." 9. It appears that under the VRS of AAIDC Model, ex-gratia payment was initially given for 45 days of each completed year of service. However, by an order dated 17.12.2002 (Annexure-E1) issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Agriculture Department addressed to the Managing Director, AAIDC Limited, it was informed that the exgratia payment was to be limited to 30 days instead of 45 days for each completed year of service. 10. At this juncture, it will be relevant to note that there was an earlier Notification dated 10.06.2004 issued by the Managing Director, AGCCL inviting applications for voluntary retirement. 10. At this juncture, it will be relevant to note that there was an earlier Notification dated 10.06.2004 issued by the Managing Director, AGCCL inviting applications for voluntary retirement. Copy of the said notice is produced before the Court and the same reads as under:- "Notice It is hereby notified for general information to the employees of this Corporation that due to financial hardship of the Corporation as well as tough competition in the works field, the Corporation is not in a position to maintain the present work force (man power) with the present limited income, since the Corporation has not been able to disburse its staff salary in regular way for last about a decade and become sick, the Corporation has decided to implement the V.R. Scheme for its employees and moved a proposal to the State Govt. for approval of the same. In term, the State Govt. has proposed to offer the V.R. benefit to the Staff as follows:- (i) Ex-gratia benefit equivalent to the 30 days as per completed year of service or pay for the months of service remain whichever is less. (ii) Gratuity as per Gratuity rule (iii) 50% of total leave encashment benefit. In view of the above, the intending employees of the Corpn. are hereby asked to submit their V.R. applications to the undersigned on or before 25th of June/04, so that, a concrete proposal for implementation of VRS may be moved to the Govt. for its approval and allocation of fund for the same. Sd/- illegible 10/6/04 Managing Director AGCC Ltd." 11. Based on the said notice, some employees of AGCCL had accepted VRS proposal. They were also sought to be covered under the Notification dated 15.02.2006. 12. Challenging the Notification dated 15.02.2006, three writ petitions being WP(C) No.970/2009, WP(C) No.5531/2010 and WP(C) No.1157/2009 came to be filed by employees who had taken voluntary retirement on the basis of notice dated 10.06.2004. All the writ petitions were allowed by judgment & order dated 11.12.2014. Three writ appeals came to be preferred, i.e. Writ Appeal No.159/2015, Writ Appeal No.342/2015 and Writ Appeal No. 97/2016. Writ Appeal No.159/2015 and Writ Appeal No.342/2015 were dismissed by an order dated 18.04.2017. Following the same, Writ Appeal No.97/2016 was also dismissed by another order passed on 25.07.2017. The said writ appeals were preferred by AGCCL. 13. Three writ appeals came to be preferred, i.e. Writ Appeal No.159/2015, Writ Appeal No.342/2015 and Writ Appeal No. 97/2016. Writ Appeal No.159/2015 and Writ Appeal No.342/2015 were dismissed by an order dated 18.04.2017. Following the same, Writ Appeal No.97/2016 was also dismissed by another order passed on 25.07.2017. The said writ appeals were preferred by AGCCL. 13. A comparison of the notice dated 18.10.2005 and the notice dated 10.06.2004 would demonstrate that under both the notices, an employee opting for voluntary retirement under VRS, as per the promise made, would be entitled to ex-gratia equivalent to 30 days per completed year of service. Challenge to the Notification dated 15.02.2006 curtailing the same to a period of 15 days was accepted by the learned Single Judge in 3(three) writ petitions and the 3(three) writ appeals preferred by AGCCL also came to be dismissed, as noticed above. We find that issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by judgments noted in Paragraph 12 of this judgment & order. Fact that this appeal is preferred by another appellant, namely, the State of Assam, does not alter the legal position as the challenge to the validity of Notification dated 15.02.2006 was already upheld by the Division Bench. 14. In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. No cost. 15. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.