AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1895 OF 2007 Mr. Vitthal Laxman Tilekar & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. BAIF Development Research Foundation & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. V.G. Mujumdar for the petitioners. Mr. P.M. Huddav for respondents 1 and 14. Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar for respondent 2. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 04, 2008. P.C.:- 1. The petitioners had opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short, “the VRS”) in 1997. There were two options - one, for lumpsum payment and the other for monthly pension. The petitioners opted for lumpsum payment. The petitioners' grievance AJN 2 is that there was some confusion in the VRS. The language was not very clear and, therefore, the petitioners had opted for lumpsum. The petitioners approached the Industrial Court at Pune with this grievance. The Industrial Court, Pune dismissed the complaints of the petitioners on 14/9/1998 and, hence, the petitioners have approached this court. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at some length. We are unable to entertain this petition. The VRS has been accepted by the petitioners. They opted for lumpsum payment. They have also been paid lumpsum amount in the year 1998. The argument of the petitioners that there was confusion in the VRS does not appear to us to be valid ground. If there was any confusion they should have, at that time, asked for clarification. We find no substance in the petition. 3. We may also refer to the judgment of this court in C.V. Madhavan & Ors. v. The Trustees, Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd. & Ors., delivered on 28/6/2002 in Writ Petition No.2661 of AJN 3 2001, where this court has taken a view that writ petitions against private parties in pension matters are not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.]