14. …. In my opinion the impugned decision of the answering respondents is the result of non-application of mind and arbitrariness. In their anxiety to avoid more financial burdens, which, as now found by me, turn out to be their actual liabilities, they have evidently done gross injustice upon the members of petitioner-associations. In my opinion, the VRS is formulated for the benefit of the employees and the same is in the nature of welfare legislation. In construing the provisions of such welfare schemes, in my judgment, Courts should adopt what is described as a benefit rule of construction. If two constructions are reasonably possible to be placed on such a provision, it follows that the construction which furthers the policy and object of the scheme and is more beneficial to the employees, has to be preferred. This calls for interference of this Court.