1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3242 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sudhakar Balwant Hadap and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3243 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. B.R. Sharma s/o Manohar Lal Sharma & another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3244 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Arun Baburaoji Guhe and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3250 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Avinash Shriram Bhusari and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3251 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prakash Bapuraoji and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3252 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Tilakraj Gupta and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3254 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Surendra Singh Aswal s/o Madan Singh Aswal and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3263 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sheshrao Pandurangji Patil and others) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3264 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Pratibha Prabhakar Deshpande and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3265 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ashok Ajit Deshpande and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3266 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prakashchandra Manikchand Shrawak and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3267 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kallil Kuniyil Govindan s/o PS Nair and another) 2 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3269 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kartikeya s/o Dr. Dhananjoy Verma and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3270 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sidhari Rappu Ram and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3271 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prithvi Nath Mohishwar Nath Pandit Bharadwaj and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3272 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Umesh Ramesh Chandra Raizada and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3273 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Vinodkumar Roshanlal Gautam & another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3274 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ajoy Kumar Ram Chandra Mandal and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3275 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Omprakash Dhoot s/o Kashiram Dhoot and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3277 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Indra Mohan Nautiyal and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3279 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kartikeya Parikshya s/o D. Parikshya and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3280 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Uma Shankar Sinha s/o Sarada Prasad Sinha and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3282 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bandu Ganpati Desai and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3283 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dulichand Udkud Bhagat and another) WITH 3 WRIT PETITION NO.3287 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Narendra Nath Trivedi and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3288 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Hemendrakumar Jain s/o Dr. P.C. Jain and another) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3307 OF 2011. (Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sudhakar Krishnarao Menjoge and another) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri M.D. Samel, Adv. for Petitioner. Shri D.N. Mathur, Adv., Shri S.V. Dhondarkar, Adv. for respective Respondents. Shri S.K. Mishra, ASGI for Respondent No.2. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2011. Heard respective learned counsel at length. The Central Administrative Tribunal has appropriately considered the controversy and conferred the same benefit on the applicants before it who had proceeded on Voluntary Retirement after 01.04.2003 as has been extended by petitioner to employees continuing with it. The said benefit is in consonance with Clause-15 of office order dated 25.08.2006 which revised the wages. It is, therefore, apparent that the application of mind by the Central 4 Administrative Tribunal does not show any error in this respect. We also find that circular by which V.R.S. was offered itself promised to employees proceedings on V.R.S., the arrears becoming payable consequent upon wage revision, then under consideration. The promise continues even in later circular dated 3/4.03.2000. These employees/applicants were never informed that their accepting said offer and parting accordingly can be used to deny them those arrears. In subsequent wage revision, it is this “separation” only which has been used to deny them the wage revision. In the backdrop of this promise held out, direction by Central Administrative Tribunal in their favour is not unjustified. At this stage Shri Samel, learned Advocate for petitioner states that no representation was addressed by employees before approaching Central Administrative Tribunal, and the employees had filed application under Section 19, almost 6 to 7 years after their proceeding on V.R.S. We find that wage revision has been sanctioned on 25.08.2006 and as such employees had no cause of action prior to that date. Shri Mathur, learned Advocate has invited our attention to Annexure-12 with the writ petition to urge that representation was made by respondent in Writ 5 Petition No.3116/2011 on 23.07.2007. The said representation was considered and rejected on 16.11.2007. He states that same is the position in other matters. In this situation we do not find any substance in the belated objection so raised by Adv. Samel, learned Counsel for petitioner. As we do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity, petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE NSN