IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 373 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 31/10/2007 in WP NO : 2290 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Faqurodin, S/o. Abdul Nadbi R/o. Venkatgiri, Hyd. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Secretary to Govt. of India, Department of SSI & ARI and Priisedent of Govt. Council of NISIET, Udyog Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-11. 2 The Chairman, Executive Committee of NISIET and Development Commissioner (SSI ), Govt. of India, Nirmal Bhavan, New Delhi-11. 3 The Principal Director, National Institute of Small Industry Extension-Training ( NISIET ), Yousufguda, Hyd-45. 4 M.Eshwaraiah, (died ( as per L.R. M.Kumari, W/o. Late M.Eshwaraiah, R/o. Madhura Nagar, Hyd.-38. ( 4th respondent not necessary ). .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) The judgment delivered by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2290 of 1999, dated 31-10-2007 has been challenged in this appeal. The facts giving rise to the present case, in a nutshell, are as under: The appellant was the employee of the respondents and under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) framed by the employer, the appellant wanted to retire. As per the scheme, the appellant was permitted to retire with effect from 24-10-1998. After having retired and after having received the entire amount payable to him, the appellant filed the aforestated petition praying that the employer be directed to pay three months Notice pay to the appellant. After hearing the learned Advocate, the learned single Judge rejected the petition on the ground that there was no provision with regard to payment of Notice pay in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, this appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. It has been submitted by him that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was framed in pursuance of some guidelines issued by the Union of India. According to the learned Advocate, there is a reference to payment of Notice pay in the said guidelines and therefore, the appellant has a right to get the Notice pay. We do not agree with the aforestated submission made by the learned Advocate for the reason that the appellant wanted to retire in pursuance of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which was introduced on 13-11-1996 and they were permitted to retire under the said scheme. The said scheme does not refer to any provision pertaining to payment of Notice pay either by the employer or by the employee. In the absence of any such provision with regard to payment of Notice pay, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant-original petitioner No.1 is not entitled to Notice pay. We are in agreement with the aforestated finding of the learned single Judge. We do not find any substance in the appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th April, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies