Jharkhand High Court
Tara Devi vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 12 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5828 of 2019
Tara Devi, aged about 60 years, W/o Late Dina Nath Pandit, R/o Near
Dobari Hospital, Dobari Colliery, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S.
Koyla Nagar, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand
2. The General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Nagar, P.O. &
P.S. Koyla Nagar, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand
3. The Area Personal Manager, Basta Kola Area-IX, Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, P.O., P.S. & District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand
4. The Project Officer, Bera Kolliery, Bharat Coking Coal Lmited, P.O., P.S.
& District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent-BCCL : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate
-----
05/12.03.2021. Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Vipul Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view
of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising
due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any
technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been
heard on merit.
3. The defects, pointed out by the office, are ignored.
4. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the
respondents to consider the application of the petitioner's son for his
appointment under Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme,
2015.
5. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the scheme namely, Coal India Special Female Voluntary
Retirement Scheme, 2015 is made for the benefit of the female. He further
submits that under this Scheme the petitioner has submitted a written
application and a proforma through proper channel for V.R.S. requesting
therein to appoint her son in her place under the Scheme. The application
of the petitioner is still pending. The writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner for a direction to appoint the son of the petitioner under the said
Scheme.
6. Mr. Vipul Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL
submits that the said rule has been said to be ultra vires to the Division
Bench judgment of this Court rendered in L.P.A. No.340 of 2016 in the case
of "Sumitra Devi v. M/s Coal India Ltd., Kolkata & Ors." vide judgment dated
23.08.2017. He further submits that the Division Bench has considered this
aspect of the matter and has rightly observed in paragraph no.14 of the
said judgment that the said Scheme has not been made operative at all.
Paragraph no.14 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
"14. Be that as it may, the fact remains that this appellant
has preferred writ application after 2002 first time in the year
2015. Moreover, the scheme of the year 2002 was never made
operative at all, for any of the employees and now for the new
scheme of the year 2015, whose life was also like an amoeba-
only six months, there was no application preferred by this
appellant and, under the short-lived scheme of the year 2015
also, this appellant cannot get any benefit. Hence, there is no
substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and no error has been
committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ
petition being W.P.(S) No.897 of 2015 order dated 30th June,
2016. We see no reason to take any other view than what is
taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, there is no
substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is,
hereby, dismissed."
7. Paragraph nos.3, 6 and 7 of the judgment which was subsequently
considered by the Division Bench in the case of "Fir Kuwar v. Coal India
Limited & Ors." & analogous cases vide order dated 27.08.2018 in
W.P. (S) No. 1622 of 2017 reported in "2018 SC OnLine Jhar. 1511" are
also quoted herein below:
"3.There is an earlier decision of a Coordinate Bench
delivered on 23rd August, 2017 in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2016
(Sumitra Devi Vs. M/s Coal India Ltd. Kolkata and Ors.) in
which the Bench has found such scheme to be
unconstitutional. The Coordinate Bench opined:-
"10) It appears that this is a very dangerous procedure
followed by the respondents. Such type of scheme for
4, 5 or 6 months brought in force, results into
dissatisfaction amongst the employees of the
respondents, as if, the same has been brought for few
selected persons only. Initially, in the year 2002, such
scheme was brought and later on withdrawn on
08.06.2006. We are unable to understand why such
type of scheme has been re-floated. It appears that
there is no consistency of thought with the Directors of
the respondents-Company. Sometimes they are too
much charitable and sometimes they are strict. By
virtue of this type of zig-zag thoughts by Directors of
the respondents-Company, few selected employees are
getting benefits and others have to file petitions and
Letters Patent Appeals. In fact, the respondents-
authorities are increasing the work of this Court. Those
who are Public Sector Undertakings, they are the
"State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. There cannot be such type of
grant of public employment to the legal heirs of the
employees. The Directors of Eastern Coalfields Limited
will take note of this matter, so that, in future also no
such type of scheme is floated for 3, 4, 5 or 6 months
and thereby, "few favourable" or "few fortunates" will
get the benefit and rest of them will have to come to
the Courts. There cannot be accommodative schemes."
6. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that
fundamentally the features of the present scheme is similar to
the one in respect of which decision has already
been delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Sumitra Devi (supra). We do not find any reason to take a
contrary view. Existence of the present scheme was
taken note of by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case
of Sumitra Devi(supra) but no specific opinion was expressed
in that judgment barring that the scheme lived a very short
life of six months only and the same had been acted upon
also.
7. As regards constitutionality of the scheme, in our
opinion, the same can not survive the test of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India. We accept the reasoning of
the Coordinate Bench expressed in L.P.A No. 340 of 2016.
Such a scheme would not be capable of being legally
enforced. The writ petitioners cannot claim any vested legal
right for enforcing the scheme, which is ex-facie
unconstitutional."
8. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that fundamentally the
features of the present Scheme is similar to the one in respect of which
decision has already been delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of "Sumitra Devi" ( supra). In view of the constitutionality of the
Scheme, the same cannot be surviving the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India and that is why the L.P.A. No.340 of 2016 was
dismissed.
9. In view of the Division Bench judgment, no relief can be extended to
the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
