Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 962 (JHR)

Tetri Devi v. B. C. C. L. through its Chairman

2008-08-20

R.R.PRASAD

body2008
Order Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while was working as canteen kamin at Dahibari Colliery, Nirsa, Dhanbad applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme known as VRS (Female) Scheme, 1992 so that her nominee Ashok Chauhan be given employment and this offer of the petitioner got approval which is evident from Annexure-1 and that petitioner while offering herself for voluntary retirement had disclosed the name of the nominee as Ashok Chouhan, who is related as son-in-law of the petitioner but Ashok Chouhan was never given employment under the scheme on the pretext that verification regarding relationship in between the petitioner and the Ashok Chouhan could not be ascertained which cannot be a legal ground for frustrating the claim of petitioner and, therefore, the authorities be directed to take Ashok Chouhan in employment. 3. However, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that though Annexure-1 does show that name of this petitioner got approved for voluntary retirement but that has never been finally accepted as because the respondents, in the meantime, were trying to ascertain the relationship in between the petitioner and the Ashok Chouhan but when it could not be ascertained, the petitioner was allowed to work till the date of her superannuation, i.e. till 30.6.2007 and during this period, all the wages due to the petitioner was given and under that situation, under the voluntary retirement scheme, dependent of the employee is not entitled to be taken in service and this proposition has been laid down by this Court in a case of The Secretary, Majdoor Sangathan Samiti of MIs Bharat Coking Coal Limited VS. Employer in relation to the Management of Katras Project Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Another as reported in 2004(1) JCR 317 (Jhr.). 4. Employer in relation to the Management of Katras Project Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Another as reported in 2004(1) JCR 317 (Jhr.). 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties it does appear that the petitioner though applied for voluntary retirement under the VRS scheme which even finds approval by the letter dated 13.2.1992 as contained in Annexure-1 but according to BCCL, the voluntary retirement of this petitioner was never accepted as relationship in between the Ashok Chouhan, nominee of the petitioner and the petitioner could not be ascertained and the petitioner was allowed to work till her retirement on superannuation and even the petitioner took the wages for the period the worked. Under that situation and keeping In view the ratio laid down in the case d The Secretary, Majdoor Sangathan Samiti of M/s Bharat Coking Coal limited vs. Employer in relation to the Management of Katras Project Area of MIs Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Another (supra), I do not find any merit in this case and hence, this application is rejected.