1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1391 OF 2000 ... Smt.Pushpa wd/o Prashant Jamaiyar and ors. ...Petitioners v/s. The Union of India & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.Y.S.Bhate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.M.Shah for Respondents. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.G.KETKAR, JJ DATED: 17th August, 2009 P.C.: 1. Petitioners Nos.1 to 30 were the employees of the Respondent No.4-Council. Petitioner No.31 is the widow of a person who was employee of the Respondent No.4-Council. On 21st May, 1994, the Additional Director, Export Inspection Council issued a circular 2 containing one time offer to the employees of the Council for voluntary retirement scheme. 2. Admitted position is that all the employees with whom we are concerned in this petition accepted that offer. Therefore, they were voluntarily retired. They have accepted all the payments that were made to them under the scheme. They have also accepted full commutation on their pensions. 3. It appears that, in the year 1995 there was a petition filed before the Calcutta High Court. Wherein certain directions were given by an order which is made in the year 1996. This petition has been filed in the year 2000 claiming various reliefs, if they are granted, will set at- knot the voluntary retirement scheme which was accepted by the employees with whom we 3 are concerned in this petition. We find that the Petitioners are guilty of latches. The Petitioners voluntarily accepted the scheme. Clause -IV of the Scheme in categorically terms stated that option once exercised is final and cannot be withdrawn under any circumstances. When we asked the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners as to how he explains the inordinate delay in moving the court, he submitted that employees were forced to accept the scheme in the year 1994 because there was a news report in a newspaper of December, 1990 that all the employees of the Council are surplus and their services will be terminated. If one peruses that news report, it shows that the statement is made there that the employees of the Council who will be found surplus will be transferred to other Government Department. We do not find any force or compulsion on the 4 employees to accept the scheme. In our opinion, having accepted the scheme voluntarily, having received all the payments to which they are entitled under the scheme and having waited for six years, the Petitioners cannot be allowed to set at-knot, which has attained finality. 4. Thus, we find no substance in the petition. However, it appears that when the petition was heard by the Court a statement was made on behalf of the Respondent to the following effect: Shri Shah, the learned Counsel for the respondents very fairly stated that the petitioners are eligible to get the benefits in terms of order dated 26th September, 1996 passed by the Calcutta High Court. By the said order, Calcutta High Court has 5 directed the respondents therein to release the benefits on account of five years weightage., amount due and payable on account of Dearness Allowance/relief on the basic pension with effect from 21st July, 1994, and to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent compounded annually i.e. From 19th September, 1994 to 13th October, 1997. Shri Shah stated that the Petitioners will be given the same benefits in terms of order of Calcutta High Court within a period of eight weeks from today. 5. Perusal of the above quoted statement shows that the Respondents had agreed to give to all the Petitioners weightage of five years as per the Calcutta High Court s judgment and they had also agreed to pay 6 interest at the rate of 12% compounded annually. By an order dated 5-9-2001 made in Review Petition No.23 of 2001, rate of interest has been reduced from 12% to 8%. There is no application made on behalf of the Respondents to withdraw the statement which has been recorded by the court in order dated 16th April, 2001. Therefore, the Respondents are bound by that statement and they have to grant the relief to which they have agreed by that statement. In our opinion, save and except this the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this petition. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)