THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WP.NO.2483 OF 2003 O R D E R The petitioners were the employees of the 1st respondent – Fertilizer Corporation of India. Consequent to the decision of the 2nd respondent – Government of India, to close down the unit, a scheme known as Voluntary Separation Scheme was promulgated vide O.M.No.2 (32)/07-DPE/WC dated 5.5.2000, which was in operation from 21.9.2002 to 20.12.2002. The petitioners opted for voluntary separation scheme. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that the voluntary separation scheme is discriminatory, since under the said scheme, the employees who are between the age group of 54 to 55 years, who have rendered nearly 30 years of service and who has only 3 to 4 yeas of left over service, are getting huge amounts under compensation and whereas the persons who are in the age group of 44 to 45 years and who have got nearly 1 ½ decades of services, are getting meager amounts and therefore, they challenged the scheme on the ground that it is lopsided and beneficial to only one section of employees. 2. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the consequent to the decision of the Government of India dated 10.9.2002, FCIL Board of Directors passed a resolution to close down all the units except JMO, which is to be hived off into a separate entity, and introduced voluntary separation scheme to all the employees, except JMO. All the employees were given thee months time to exercise option and that the compensation under VSS cosists of ex-gratia payment equivalent to 45 days emoluments (basic + D.A.) for each completed year of service or the monthly emoluments at the time of retirement multiplied by balance months of service left before the normal date of retirement whichever is less and that this is the generals formula adopted and the contention that it is discretionary, is illegal and arbitrary. It is further stated, inter alia, that the petitioner never objected to the VSS Scheme which was circulated by memo dated 5.5.2000 and that the petitioners having accepted the scheme, cannot now turn around and question the same. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioners opted for voluntary separation scheme and as stated in the counter affidavit, which is not disputed, the respondents have adopted the general formula which is applicable to all the Public Sector Undertakings and Government Sectors for working out the compensation under voluntary retirement scheme and voluntary separation scheme and when the scheme was introduced and when they were allowed three months time to exercise their option, they did not objection the scheme which was issued under memo dated 5.5.2000 and they accepted the scheme without any demur and after having accepted the scheme, they cannot now question the same as discriminatory and moreover the policy decision of the Government with regard to voluntary separation scheme, which was introduced consequent upon the decision of the Government to close down some of its units of the 1st respondent - Corporation, cannot be interfered with by this court under the writ jurisdiction. 4. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ---------------------------------- ------ 10—06—2011