Voluntary retirement scheme benefits accepted without demur preclude subsequent claims for pensionary parity after two decades.

The petitioners were appointed as Mechanics in M/s Himalayan Wool Combers Private Limited (a unit under the J&K Industries Department) between 1978 and 1979.

Following a Cabinet decision in 2000 to close the company, a "Golden Handshake Scheme" (Voluntary Retirement Scheme - VRS) was introduced via Government Order dated 22.03.2001.

The petitioners accepted the scheme, retired, and received terminal benefits including provident fund, gratuity, and ex-gratia payments by 2002.

In 2021, the petitioners filed this writ seeking pensionary benefits at par with Government employees under Government Order No. 35-IND of 2018, which had granted such benefits to employees of J&K Industries (JKI) and related corporations following litigation in *Jawahar Lal Sazwal v. State of J&K*.

Respondent No. 2 had previously filed a separate writ (SWP No. 01/2019) for COLA arrears under the VRS scheme, a fact suppressed in the current petition.

1. Whether petitioner No. 2 is disentitled to relief due to the suppression of material facts regarding previous litigation.

2. Whether employees who voluntarily retired under a specific Golden Handshake Scheme can claim pensionary benefits under a subsequent government order meant for different corporations.

3. Whether the petition is barred by the doctrine of laches and the principle of "fence-sitting".

The court applied the equitable principle that a litigant invoking writ jurisdiction must approach the court with "clean hands," noting that suppression of material facts relating to previous litigation is highly reprehensible.

It further applied the doctrine of Estoppel, holding that employees who accept benefits under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) without demur are precluded from later challenging its terms or seeking different benefits.

Finally, the court relied on the precedent of *Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of J&K & Ors.* (2009) 15 SCC 321, which establishes that "fence-sitters" who wait for others to succeed in litigation before asserting their own stale claims are not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226.

The court found that Petitioner No. 2 engaged in a "multiplicity of proceedings" by pursuing contradictory claims—one for terminal benefits under the VRS and another for pension—while concealing the former from the Court.

Regarding the merits, the Court observed that the petitioners were appointed after the registration of M/s Himalayan Wool Combers Pvt. Ltd. (24.01.1978) and thus had no employment relationship with J&K Industries Ltd., making Govt. Order No. 35-IND of 2018 inapplicable to them.

Further, the court reasoned that having accepted the Golden Handshake Scheme in 2001/2002 and remained silent for twenty years, the petitioners were estopped from resiling from that agreement.

The court categorized the petitioners as "indolent" fence-sitters who only woke from "deep slumber" after seeing other corporations' employees succeed in court.

All petitioners were barred by estoppel and laches after accepting VRS benefits twenty years prior.

The Court specifically held that the 2018 Order was not a judgment *in rem* and did not apply to employees of the liquidated Himalayan Wool Combers unit.

Consequently, the associated contempt petition [CCP(S) No. 86/2022] was also disposed of as it did not survive the dismissal of the main petition.