IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4003 of 2007 GULZARI MAHTO son of Medani Mahto, resident of village-Chhatarpura, P.S.-Mokama, District-Patna. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary Dept. of Industry, Govt. of India, At- Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, National Textile Corporation, (West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa) Limited, a Govt. of India undertaking, 7 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta-700013. 3. The Manager (Administration), a Unit of Bihar Co-operative Weaver’s Spining Mills, Mokama, District-Patna. 4. The Production Manager, a Unit of Bihar Co- operative Weaver’s Spining Mills, Mokama, Distinct-Patna. 5. The Assistant Manager (HRD), a Unit of Bihar Co-operative Weaver’s Spinning Mills, Mokama, District-Patna. 6. The Assistant Manager (Accounts) a Unit of Bihar Co-operative Weaver’s Spinning Mills, Mokama, District-Patna. WITH CWJC No.4005 of 2007 BHIM LAL PRASAD , son of Ram Lakhan Mahto, resident of village and P.S. Pundarak, District-Patna. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary Dept. of Industry, Govt. of India, At- Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, National Textile Corporation, (West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa) Limited, a Govt. of India undertaking, 7 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta-700013. 3. The Manager (Administration), a Unit of Bihar Co-operative Weaver’s Spining Mills, Mokama, District-Patna. 4. The Production Manager, a Unit of Bihar Co- operative Weaver’s Spining Mills, Mokama, Distinct-Patna. 5. The Assistant Manager (HRD), a Unit of Bihar Co-operative Weaver’s Spinning Mills, Mokama, District-Patna. 2 6. The Assistant Manager (Accounts) a Unit of Bihar Co-operative Weaver’s Spinning Mills, Mokama, District-Patna. ----------- 3 15.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the National Textile Corporation and learned counsel for the Union of India. In both the writ petitions the respective petitioners have raised an issue of forcible retirement with effect from 6.3.1993 by the respondent Corporation for the sole reason to debar them from deriving the benefits as envisaged under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the Corporation in the year 1992. It is stated that such of the people who had retired on or after 1.4.1993 were entitled for additional benefits but as the petitioners were made to retire before the cut of date they have been debarred from the benefits to which the persons who took retirement on 1.4.1993 were entitled Learned counsel for the parties agree that the admissible amount of retiral dues provided under the Scheme has been paid to the petitioners. 3 Be that as it may, the writ petitioners seek to raise an issue of forcible retirement after more than 14 years of the date on which they were made to retire. This Court under Article 226 would not exercise discretionary powers on such stale issues. The writ petitions suffers from unexplained vices of laches and gross delay. The same are dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)