IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.26247 OF 1999 DATED:29.07.2010 Between: D. Baksha and others … Petitioners And The A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director Agro Bhavan, AC Guards, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.26247 OF 1999 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to declare the action of the respondents in forcibly removing the petitioners from service under the guise of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), and in not considering their case for providing alternative employment in terms of G.O. Ms. No.121, dt.31.10.1996, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners’ case, in short, is that they are all Auxilliary Assistants in the first respondent – Corporation; the Government ordered closure of the pesticides division vide G.O. Ms. No.28, dt.8.7.1997 and directed retrenchment of N.M.Rs under the Industrial Disputes Act, and to discharge employees, who are not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, under a VRS; and the first respondent, by Circular dt.1.9.1997, called for unconditional option for voluntary retirement. The petitioners would contend that the respondent authorities had threatened them that, if they failed to accept the VRS, they would be sent away without even payment of compensation. It is the case of the petitioners that they had submitted representation dt.14.11.1997 to the first respondent stating that they be continued in service, more particularly as they belonged to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and, without considering their representation, they were relieved from service on 6.12.1997 and 31.12.1997. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that there was no threat or coercion; the petitioners had voluntarily given unconditional options to retire from service on different dates in September and October, 1997; and they had all retired with effect from 31.10.1997. It is further stated that all the petitioners were paid the amounts due to them under the VRS package in the month of December, 1997. The respondents would submit that the VRS package is inclusive of ex gratia, three months notice pay, gratuity and leave salary. No reply affidavit is filed to the counter affidavit. The averments in the counter affidavit stand un-rebutted. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioners have not referred to their having accepted compensation under VRS, much prior to the filing of the writ petition on 21.12.1999. The petitioners’ contention regarding the applicability of G.O. Ms. No.121, dt.31.10.1996 does not merit acceptance. This Court, in Bandugula Kishan v. Managing Director and Vice-Chairman, A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd.[1], observed that the said G.O. had not been adopted by the Corporation and as such was inapplicable to employees of the first respondent – Corporation. While this Court had directed the respondents to consider the operation of roster backwards in so far as Scheduled Castes are concerned, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that, since the petitioners occupied last grade posts and in as much as there is no post below the posts held by the petitioners, the question of operating the roster backwards, and continuing them in service does not arise. In any event, the petitioners themselves do not seek extension of the benefit of operation of the roster backwards. Having received compensation under the VRS, it is not now open to the petitioners to turn around and contend that they be continued in service. The petitioners have suppressed the fact that they have received compensation under the VRS package nearly a year prior to the filing of the writ petition. While suppression of material fact would have necessitated the writ petition being dismissed with exemplary costs, I refrain from doing so as the petitioners were hitherto employed in last grade posts, and it would not be inequitable to mulct them with exemplary costs thereby placing additional financial burden on them. In any view of the matter the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:29.07.2010 bnr [1] 2006 (3) ALT 16