L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. These writ appeals are filed against the common order, dated 29.07.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 7979 and 8561 of 2004.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the writ petitions.

3. The petitioners were employees of the Sponge Iron India Limited (SIIL), a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU). As a measure of reduction of the work force, the Company introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), initially through circular, dated 28.04.1995, and the same was extended from time to time. The petitioners availed the benefit under VRS and they were retired from service, with effect from 15.10.1998. The scheme inter alia provided for payment of ex-gratia equivalent to 1 months emoluments and additional compensation equivalent to months pay, for every completed year of service. The amounts calculated on that basis have been paid to the petitioners and they ceased as employees. The pay scales in the PSUs were revised by the Government of India through proceedings, dated 25.06.1999, with effect from 01.01.1997. An option was given to the PSUs to adopt the revision of pay scales, depending upon their financial viability. SIIL has since been merged with the National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC), the 4th respondent in both the writ petitions, with effect from 01.07.2010.

4. Even before SIIL was merged with the 4th respondent, the petitioners laid claim for re-calculation of their benefits under VRS on the basis of the Revised Pay Scales (RPS). According to them, once the pay scales became operative from 01.01.1997, the ex-gratia and additional compensation are to be calculated on the basis of the same. Their request was not acceded to either by the SIIL or by the 4th respondent. Hence, they filed the writ petitions.

5. The 4th respondent contested the writ petitions by filing a detailed counter-affidavit. According to it, the relationship between the petitioners and the very employer ceased with the acceptance of the benefits under VRS. It was also their contention that the RPS would apply only to such of the employees, who are on the rolls of the company, as on 16.08.2002, and since the petitioners ceased to be employees of the SIIL, in the year 1998 itself, they are not entitled for any benefit. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions through common order under appeals.

6. Sri K. Raghavacharyulu, learned counsel for the appellant/the 4th respondent, submits that the relationship between the petitioners, on the one hand, and the SIIL, on the other hand, was purely contractual in nature and with their retirement on voluntary basis, that relation ceased to exist. He contends that after cessation of such relationship, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any benefit whatever. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in A.K. Bindal v. Union of India, Officers & Supervisors of I.D.P.L. v. Chairman & M.D., I.D.P.L., and HEC Voluntary Retired Employees Welfare Society v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, learned counsel further submits that the Supreme Court held that the employee, who retired on voluntary basis, cannot claim the benefit of RPS.

7. Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/1st respondent in both the appeals, on the other hand, submits that the very basis for extending the benefit under VRS is the scale of pay, which an employee is entitled to, and once the scale of pay of the petitioners was revised with effect from a date, anterior to the one, on which they have taken voluntary retirement, the benefits are to be calculated on the basis of the RPS. He contends that the precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent are in relation to the claim of the employees of certain PSUs for adoption of the very RPS and not vis-a-vis the claims made by the employees of an organisation, which has already adopted the RPS. He submits that even on merits, the respective