TAPEN SEN, J.

(1) THIS Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 9. 4. 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 11433 (W) of 2001 (Ashok Kr. Gupta and ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.) whereby and whereunder he was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition. Let it be recorded that earlier the preliminary objection have been raised in this case by the Respondent Company regarding maintainability of the Appeal in view of cessation of the status of the Respondent company. That point was taken by reason of the fact that the Respondent company (Jessop and Co.) ceased to be a Government Company or an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India in view privatisation thereof. It appears that this preliminary objection was heard by another Hon"ble division Bench on a number of dates but finally on 11. 5. 2007, that point was decided and it was held that the Appeal is maintainable as when the cause of action had arisen at the time of final hearing of the Writ Petition, the Company was subject to Writ Jurisdiction. After rejecting the said preliminary objection, the said Division Bench directed that the Appeal be listed for final hearing. That is how the matter was listed before us.

(2) IT appears that these Appellants filed the Writ petition claiming the difference of ex gratia compensation and the difference of the terminal benefits which was already paid to them under the Voluntary retirement Scheme and this claim was based on the revision of pay which was recommended by the 5th Pay Commission and which was implemented w. e. f. a date prior to the date of exercising option for voluntary retirement without claiming any arrears.

(3) THE learned Single Judge, having noticed the aforementioned fact, observed as follows:- "it is now to be seen whether after the acceptance of V. R. S. and cessation of relationship, can the Petitioners claim the benefit of revision implemented after their acceptance of V. R. S. , though with retrospective effect, without payment of arrears".

(4) THE facts of the case duly were noticed by the learned Single Judge but for convenience, reference to the said brief facts are also necessary here. One M/s. Jessop and Co. Ltd (Respondent No. 2 herein) a subsidiary of Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. (BBUNL) of the Government of india, became sick sometimes in 1995. Upon a reference made to the BIFR, the said company was declared to be a sick company on 2. 6. 1995 and the State bank of India was appointed as the operating agency. On 15th December, 1997, a rehabilitation Scheme was framed and a draft scheme pertaining thereto was also notified in May 1998. In pursuance of such a Scheme and by a Notice dated 3. 3. 1998, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme was issued under which eligible employees of the Company given the liberty to exercise their options in the manner prescribed therein. The Appellants opted under the said Voluntary retirement Scheme and as such, they all voluntarily retired between 31. 3. 1998 and November 1998. They were also paid benefits under the said Scheme which included compensation which was computed keeping in mind the remaining period of service which they had

"sacrificed" and the said compensation was paid to them in accordance with the formula laid down therein.

(5) IN the meantime, the Government of India decided to revise the pay scale of the executives holding below the Board level posts and of the non-Unionized supervisory staff w. e. f. 1. 1. 1992 through a decision that was taken on 19. 7. 1995.

(6) ADMITTEDLY, at that point of time, the Appellants were in service and the earlier pay scale which had been introduced in 1997 was due for revision on the expiry of 5 years w. e. f. 1. 1. 1992. On 30. 5. 1997, M/s. Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd. implemented the revision but Jessop took the decision to implement the same on 29. 1. 1999 w. e. f. 1. 1. 1992 on a condition that no arrears on account