IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WPMP.No.36953 of 2008 & WRIT PETITION No: 16001 of 1999 BETWEEN: 1 B.James, S/o. Devanandam, A.P.State Irrigation Development Corporation, Sub Division, Kurnool. 2 C.Chinna Eranna, S/o. C.Linganna, A.P.S.I.D.C., Sub Division, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, A.P.State Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd., Maitrivanam, Huda Commercial Complex, Srinivasanagar Colony, East Hyderabad. 2 Executive Engineer, A.P.S.I.D.C., Ltd., Kurnool. 3 Secretary to Government, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to retire the petitioners the action of the respondents in trying to retire the petitioners under the VRS scheme as laid down under circular Memo No. IDC/MD/Adm/E1/As01/E/VRS/95/6777 dated 12/12/1997 issued in pursuance of unconstitutional and declare that the petitioners are entitled to continue as Irrigation attendant in the A.P. State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.BALA KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in seeking to retire the petitioners under Voluntary Retirement Scheme in purported implementation of circular Memo No.IDC/MD/Adm/E1/AS01/PE/VRS/95/6777 dated 12.12.1997 as illegal. 2. The petitioners were given compassionate appointments in place of their deceased fathers in the year 1995. The Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited (for short, ‘the Corporation’) issued circular dated 12.12.1997 providing for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The guidelines pertaining to the said scheme include eligibility criteria. Guideline No.1 reads as under: “I. Eligibility: The V.R. Scheme shall be made applicable to the regular/permanent employees who have either: a) Rendered an uninterrupted service of minimum ten (10) years in the Corporation, or b) Attained forty (40) years of age on the date of application.” 3. The petitioners specifically pleaded that out of coercion they were made to submit their application for voluntary retirement and at a later point of time when they sought to withdraw their applications, they were rejected on the ground that their applications were already acted upon. According to the petitioners, the action of the Corporation in accepting their purported request for voluntary retirement is contrary to the above conditions of eligibility contained in the scheme, as they have neither put in the minimum uninterrupted service of ten years in the Corporation or attained the age of 40 years on the date of application. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the plea of the petitioners that the Corporation coerced them into filing their applications for voluntary retirement has been denied. It is also stated that their subsequent request to permit them to withdraw the applications was rejected as their applications were accepted by the Corporation by that time and that such a course was not permissible after acceptance of their request. 5. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by order dated 22.12.2008. After the aforesaid order was dictated on 22.12.2008 allowing the writ petition and before the said order was transcribed and signed, Smt. Kavita Gottipati, learned counsel for the respondents filed WPMP.No.36953 of 2008 supported by an affidavit for posting the writ petition under the caption “For Being Mentioned”. The case was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the petitioners to make his further submissions. Today, further hearing of the case has been held. 6. At the hearing, learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention to the averment in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1 wherein it is inter alia mentioned as under: “The Government vide their Memo.No.47538/PE-1/A2/98-1 dated 26.08.1998 have declared a special package of V.R.S for those regular employees who have not put in 10 years of service and such employees are eligible for the V.R.S. package benefit of not less than Rs.30,000/-. The said instructions of Government are circulated to all the Division Offices/Notice Board of the respondent corporation vide circular Memi.No.3698 dated 17.09.1998 and the field officers were asked to forward the applications from those who have not put in 10 years of service also.” The learned counsel also placed before me a Memo.No.47538/PE/A2/98-1 dated 26.08.1998 by which the Voluntary Retirement scheme was amended to the above-mentioned effect. She also submitted that in pursuance of the said amendment, the respondents have given voluntary retirement to the petitioners and that they have received the package benefit under the Voluntary Retirement scheme. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners conceded this fact and submitted that in view of the coercion exerted by the respondents, the petitioners had no option other than accepting the cheque and encashing the same. He further stated that the amendment has not relaxed the condition contained in the original scheme that the employee should cross 40 years of age to qualify for voluntary retirement. 8. In my considered opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of acquiescence. The fact that the petitioners have not only received the cheques but also encashed them belies their contention that they received the cheques under coercion. While no foundation is laid by the petitioners in support of their plea of coercion, even if acceptance of cheque can be said to be under coercion, the petitioners failed to show any further compulsion on their part to encash the same. Assuming that the subsequent amendment did not enable the respondents to give voluntary retirement to the employees who did not cross 40 years of age, the action of the petitioners in encashing the cheques shows their conscious waiver or act of acquiescence in questioning the action of the respondents in giving voluntary retirement to the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J December 29, 2008 DSK