IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
   
  W.P.(C) 5332/2010 AND   W.P.(C) 4740/2008
   I.P.KAPOOR AND ORS ..... Petitioners
  Through: Mr. S. P. Saxena, Adv.
   
versus
   
  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
  Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Adv.
   
  S.P.SAXENA and ORS. ..... Petitioners
  Through: Mr. H.P. Chaturvedi, Adv. with
  Mr. S.P. Saxena, Adv.
   
versus
   
  UOI and ORS. ..... Respondents
  Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Adv. with A.S. Singh, Adv. for R-1.
  Mr. L.R. Khatana, Adv. for R-2 to 4.
 
  CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
     O R D E R 09.08.2010
 
  Since both the above mentioned writ petitions have common facts,
  the same are being decided by this common order. The Writ Petition (C)
  No.5332/2010 has been filed by 37 petitioners under Article 226 of the
  Constitution of India seeking declaration of an introduced one time voluntary  retirement scheme dated 21.5.1994 as malafide and invalid being played fraud on   the fundamental rights of the employees of Export Inspection Council and Export   Inspection Agencies.
  The earlier Writ Petition (C) No.4740/2008 has been filed by 56
  petitioners challenging the same scheme dated 21.5.1994. It appears that the   challenge of the said scheme by the petitioners in both the writ petitions is   after the period of 16 years of the said scheme in W.P. (C) No.5332/2010 and 14   years of the said scheme in W.P. (C) No.4740/2008.
  It is not in dispute that the petitioners admittedly enjoyed the financial benefits during this period under the said scheme as compared to the
  normal voluntary retirement and the relevant rules. It is also the admitted
  fact that most of the petitioners had earlier filed the writ petitions before
  this Court as well as in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the years   1999 and 2001 on the same issue and the facts. The contentions of the   petitioners were not accepted by the Courts from time to time. The details of  the earlier litigations are given as below:
 
  ?CWP No.6482/1999 titled as Bhagwat Prasad and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.in Delhi High Court
 
  (a) The said writ petition was filed by 62 persons, inter alia, challenging the   selfsame SVRS dated 21.5.1994;
  (b) It was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court vide order dated
  23.4.2001. The said order was challenged by way of LPA No.256/2001 which was   also dismissed vide order dated 17.5.2001.
  (c) It is relevant to mention that out of 62 petitioner in the said petition,
  at least 10 persons are again petitioners (either directly or indirectly) in
  W.P. (C) No.4740/2008 being petitioners No.30, 31, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 48, 53
  and 56.
  CMWP No.43851/1999 titled as I.P. Kapoor and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. In   Allahabad High Court
    (a) The said writ petition was filed by 21 persons, inter alia, challenging the   selfsame SVRS dated 21.5.1994.
  (b) It was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court vide
  order dated 27.3.2003.
  (c) It is relevant to mention that out of 21 petitioners in CWP No.43851/1999   in the said petition, at least 11 persons are again petitioners (either directly   or indirectly) in W.P. (C) No.4740/2008 being petitioners No.14, 21, 22, 23, 26,  27, 28, 32, 37, 47 and 54.
   CWP No.658/2001 titled as Archana Saxena and Ors. Vs. Union of India in Delhi High Court.
    (a) The said writ petition was filed by 25 persons, inter alia, challenging the  selfsame SVRS dated 21.5.1994.
  (b) It was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court vide order dated
  27.2.2001. The said order was challenged by way of LPA No.454/2001 which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2003.
  (c) It is relevant to mention that out of 25 petitioners in CWP No.658/2001 in the said petition, at least 19 persons are again petitioners (either directly or indirectly) in W.P. (C) No.4740/2008 being petitioners No.1 to 5, 7 to 13, 15,17 to 19, 35, 45 and 55.?
  The respondents have filed all the relevant copies of the orders
  passed by the Court along with the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition (C)  No.4740/2008. It is the admitted position that most of the petitioners had opted for retirement under the said scheme carrying more benefits and they enjoyed the same. Now they have challenged the same very scheme after the expiry of 15 years.
  In the case of A.K. Bindal Vs. Union of India; (2003) 5 SCC 163,
  the Apex Court has held:?that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex-gratia besides the  terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and  his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering  any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or  rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in the business world it is known as ?golden handshake?. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a complete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves
  with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind  of his past rights with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with  regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period.?
    In other case reported in (2006) 3 SCC 708; HEC Voluntary Retd.
  Employees Welfare Society and Anr. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., the  Apex Court has held:  ?that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme speaks of a package. One either takes it  or rejects it. While offering to opt for the same, presumably the employee  takes into consideration the future implication also. ? The expression ?special  scheme? used therein must be understood in the context of a general scheme of  employment governing the terms and conditions of service or which is a part of  the statutory rules governing the services of the employees.?
 
  There is no force in the contention of the petitioners that the
  petitioners came to know about the fraud committed by the respondents in the year 2007 on receipt of report of RTI. The said contention is totally
  misconceived because of the reason that the petitioners have been challenging  the same very scheme from the year 1999 itself in various Courts. There is a  clear delay on the part of the petitioners. Both the writ petitions are badly  barred by delay and latches. The petitioners are estopped from taking the same  stand over and over again. No justification has been given by the petitioners  for such a long time.  In view of the above said facts and law laid down by the Apex  Court, there is no merit in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. Both  the writ petitions are dismissed with no cost.  The pending applications also stand dismissed.
     MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
  AUGUST 09, 2010
  *************************************************************************************** 
Dear friends in none of the dismissed cases SVRS-1994 was not challenged about the constitutional violations. Nobody has highlighted the fraud in which the original circular of commerce ministry was manipulated by EIC. Estoppel rule not applicable to fraud cases.