IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:8358 of 1998 Between: 1 Y. Venkateshwara Rao S/o late Subba Rao R/o Hyderabad 2 L. Appa Rao S/o late Veerapatrudu R/o Hyderabad 3 A.S. Subramanya Sastry S/o Late Sri Viswanadham R/o Hyderabad 4 Mahendra Sarma S/o Ganasham Sarma R/o Hyderabad 5 C.V. Prasad S/o C. Seshagiri Rao R/o Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Commissioner of Fisheries, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 3 A.P. Fisheries Corporation Limited Rep. by Vice-Chairman-cum- Managing Director. Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to settle the benefits due to the petitioners on account of voluntary retirement by a) paying three months’ notice pay b) taking the Dearness Allowance at 53.43% for the purpose of calculation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefits by taking the services up to 18.03.1998 and c) paying the salary from 12.03.1998 to 18.03.1998 along with interest @18% per annum. Heard Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appeared for the respondents. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the petitioners are not pressing the reliefs claimed under (b) and (c) of the prayer mentioned supra. With regard to prayer “a”, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in pursuance of the VRS contained in Memo No.1038/PE/A2/94-4, dated 23.01.1996, the petitioners applied for voluntary retirement in August, 1997 and that as their applications were not decided, they withdrew the same in February, 1998 by stating that they are not willing to go on VRS, unless they are given three months’ notice pay and other benefits. However, by proceedings, dated 12.03.1998, respondent No.2, the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.3 Corporation, accepted the petitioners’ applications and relieved them with effect from 17.03.1998. According to the learned counsel, failure of the respondents to pay three months’ salary in lieu of notice is contrary to the VRS contained in Memo, dated 23.01.1996. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed by the General Manager of respondent No.3 Corporation and the terms of the VRS. Clause 6(a)(iv) of the VRS provides that one month’s/three months’ notice pay (as per the conditions of service applicable) shall be paid as one of the terminal benefits to the employee, who is given voluntary retirement. The petitioners filed the Service Regulations which inter alia provide that the service of the regular employee is liable to be terminated by the employer by giving three months’ notice or paying him salary in lieu of notice, in case of closure of department, general retrenchment, reduction of work, abolition of posts etc. In the instant case, it is admitted that the petitioners’ applications for taking VRS were withdrawn on the ground that they will accept VRS only if they are paid three months’ pay in lieu of notice. But, curiously, respondent No.3 relieved the petitioners in purported acceptance of their applications earlier made, but withdrawn. In the absence of the applications of the petitioners, their discontinuance itself amounts to termination. As noted above, termination of the services of regular employees requires three months’ notice or payment of salary for the said period in lieu of notice. Since the respondents failed to give voluntary retirement to the petitioners before their applications were withdrawn, they are bound to give the petitioners three months’ notice or three months’ pay in lieu of such notice. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 shall pay the petitioners three months’ salary in lieu of notice, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni