IN THE Hlg-l wURT OF JUDIGXTURE AT BILASPUR: w.P.No. $¥3C /2003 Single Bench PETITIONERS5 l . Amrit Lal aged about 52/ years S/o late Shri Pati Ram. Narad Ram aged about 52 years S/o Shri Raj Lal e Tirthu Ram aged about 55 years‘s/o lam Shri Bilas Ram. 9. Abhay Ram aged about 52 years S/o late ShrigBhagirathig Devanteen Bai aged about 53 years We late Shri Pardeshi Ram. Smte Chitrarekha Bai aged about 49‘ years W/o shri Pritam Lal. ‘Smt. Mangli Bai aged about 46 years w/o snri Johit Ram. Hirde Ram agea about 57 years S/o Shii Bhunnu Ram . Johit Ram aged about 50 years S/o Goku Ram. ..2.. l -2- All. are working as workers in Kirandul Iron—Ore m‘oject of National Mineral Development corporation Ltd. Kirandul Dis trict Dan tewada . V/s RESPONDENTgg 1. National Mineral Development corporation Ltd. Kirandul Bailadila iron Ore Project through its Chaiman-cum—Managing Director , Kirandul . 2. Senior Manager (Personnel), national Mineral Development corporation Ltd. Kirandul, District Dantewada. PETI‘l‘ION UNDER eatiqnia122EéilzmzwzzupiTHE00mm OF INDIA; Em HIE}! COURT OF CHHATTISGARH‘AT BILASPUR WP, No.2780/ 2003 Amritlal and others K Vs. , NEah'onal Mineral Development Corporation Limited and others 1 § ‘ Shn Alok Bakshl Counsel for the pentaonem Shu P ‘S NaJr Semor Advocate Wlth Shn P S Ixoshy f01 the respondents ORDER 12.04.2004 Heard. 2. i The V.VR. S. scheme framed by the Banks came up for i consideration before the Hon’ble Supieme Court and Judgments ' the1eof found luported J1 Bank of Incha —v- O P Swarnakar (2000 (2) SCC 721), State Bank of Patiala —v— Jagga Singh (2004(2) SCC 20 1) and State. Bank of Patiala —v— Romesh Chander Kanoii am other (2004(2) soc 65 1). It is pointed out by Sbn‘ Nair; Senior Advocaie that V.‘R;,S. has also been cimsidered in the case of Punjab National Bank —v— Virendra Kuniax Goel, a31c1 others reponed in 2004 (2) soc 193. 3‘ It is contended that in View of the judgments of the Supreme Court the position of iaw regarding, YRS). is now Well/4 settled. 4. . Return has been flied. Learneci Counsel for the responderots submitted that petitioner No.1 has not opted for VoltmtaiySeparation Scheme (hereinafter referred to V.S.S) and -a- pacifiomws No.2 t9 9 had applied for V3.8. by submitting tha‘u‘ hravocable option and 1'11 all {he casas 1116 zumwming x‘ti‘pQm'iantS accqgtad $16k VSS. 31$ all fh€ir VS“. corapejmation 8116i E‘S’iii‘al dams W€r5 preparai for yavmmlt to ‘f'lE: pefitimwm aild except pEt‘hioners No3) ‘o 5;, 6, all thc: othéz‘ pétit'ionem 1: petixicnais NoK‘r) 7, 8 {$3 9 haw gjirsrig accgpi‘ed Tha VSS. compmmatim‘l mid fmal duc‘fss, aaai Warp“ pr€13€a€d aS pm” VVSS, iloatad by tha respondanis azld thm'r namw wem gJso SmmK off fram tlm rolls; of respondants 'Lha‘afere aftai‘ applying ‘ VSS. and having accaptad ”£116 (films, £116 pa‘dtiox1as calinoi chalknge €1.19 u'am: 5. Coun$€1 for am petitioném is not in a yosiiioxi :0 dispute th€ fact that yafitimmr No. 1 has not optsd and pai’a‘ioxmm No.2 x 1 10 9 haw mat 136.511 subjectsd for malical iitgess b6fore misy acmptad the mms. 6, It i$ aka stamd that 13€iitionar No, 1 alwao be subjw‘red t0 msdical mg? mid hsra shank}, ha no apprehansion at in Vie‘ of tha Siammsnt matk: by 1116 r€$pondsnts, so fay as $116 « t e‘ , x? 61‘ifign6rs’ xiavar O i3 concamml, 6105.3 ilot $11bsist. ) me it I“\ . Tim petitionam haw: {liad {ms §€titi03§ jomtly, Though aS point-3d o i3 the mania fhat the position of pe‘u‘tionar N0. 1 diff€r€rki thm the her patiiionsrs arid W61: 3‘11 rspe of otr ion€r$ No.4 7.8 r 85 9, duyil the 11d€11cv u of tha tition 3 t ) l‘ ” € e ty hava aiready amapd m6 campenSa‘i and figal dmes which-wag prepared aS per ,S.S. floamd by V and thair 118m€s Wg also Struck Qf from The TGHS of r f raspoxldeiltg but $0 far as })6titi0:1€rs N03, 5 8x, 6» am cmacszneil, i s $tai€d 131a i‘h‘s migpandgms . havé 31 accaped eir r6ondc11s $pt 1 sa W ‘ n is é oi wct he ha m i”L \ k i i ab 30 t th ad“ Af7<~ “W Wmbmm @ §V.S.S. and their V.S.S. compensation and retiral dues have been Epmpared for payment. 1:8. So far as the petitioners are concemed, the grievamce does fnot subsist and no cause of action suivives in this petition. 9. Having thus considered, in the opinion of this Court no case has been made out warranting inteiference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/ 227 for issuance ofwrit. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. M1: