- (1.) The writ petitioners challenge a decision of the respondent of February 17), 2009 by which it was notified that certain posts in the first respondent had been abolished. The notice offered a voluntary retirement scheme to those occupying the posts that were being abolished. It further stipulated that those who did not opt for the voluntary retirement scheme would be given the benefit of an early retirement scheme.
(2.) When the petition was received, an order was made requiring the petitioners to exercise their option without prejudice to their rights and contention that the decision reflected in the notice of February 17, 2009" was erroneous. The petitioners report that they have exercised their option.
(3.) The petitioners say that in a matter relating to service, a writ petition may be maintained against the first respondent and there is a Division Bench judgment of this Court in such regard. Since the respondents have not been called upon, it is not necessary to go into the aspect of maintainability as the merits of the petitioners' claim have been considered here.;