THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24515 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Junior Assistant in the Krishna District Milk Producers Cooperative Union Limited, the 1st respondent herein. Scheme of voluntary retirement was introduced by the 1st respondent. The petitioner submitted an application to avail the benefit. The 1st respondent issued proceedings, dated 30.12.1999 acceding to the request of the petitioner. However, two months thereafter, the petitioner was issued letter, dated 17.02.2000, stating that his case was considered in accordance with clauses 6 and 10 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and his request for voluntary retirement is not acceded to. The proceedings, dated 30.12.1999 are cancelled. The petitioner submitted an application to extend the leave, on 03.05.2000. That was rejected on 19.06.2000. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, stating that the very acceptance of the application for VRS submitted by the petitioner through proceedings dated 30.12.1999 was subject to review and in case any misconduct is noticed, the order is liable to be recalled. It is alleged that the petitioner has resorted to several acts of misconduct, while in service, and taking the same into account, the impugned order dated 17.02.2000, is passed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the application of the petitioner for availing the benefit of VRS was accepted through order, dated 30.12.1999. However, condition No.4 incorporated therein reads as under: “This order is subject to review in case any misconduct is noticed before his retirement and without prejudice to the disciplinary cases already pending against him.” In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner remained absent for 4,760 days and that period was not regularized at all. One spell is of about five years between 19.04.1989 and 28.06.1994. This was taken into account and the 1st respondent has issued the impugned proceedings. The petitioner cannot claim the benefit under VRS, as a matter of right. At any rate, the petitioner has since attained the age of superannuation. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25.11.2010. GJ