1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3437 OF 2009. (Mrs. Urmila w/o Sanjeev Wasnik Vs. The Govt. of India and others) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri S.D. Harode, Adv. for the Petitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra, ASGI for Respondent No.1. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2011. Heard Shri Harode, Adv. for petitioner and learned ASGI for respondent No.1. It is apparent that there can be no comparison between the scheme for voluntary retirement and the scheme available to employees who retire on medical grounds. Learned Counsel contends that petitioner initially had approached for voluntary retirement and after rejection of that request, retirement on medical ground has been sought. Learned ASGI points out that there is no challenge to rejection of voluntary retirement in present petition. We find that petitioner is attempting to seek parity in benefits and is seeking treatment at par with those who had retired voluntarily. As basic scheme and 2 purpose thereof is different, the grievance of discrimination is, misconceived. If petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his application for voluntary retirement and if that cause is still open to challenge, without affecting that challenge and cause, we dismiss of present petition. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE NSN