ORDER : 1. These matters have been referred to us as the question of constitutionality of the Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015 has arisen in all these matters. Under the said scheme, a female employee with the Coal India Ltd. is entitled to take voluntary retirement on attaining the age of 58 years as against normal age of superannuation of 60 years and nominate one of her dependents for permanent employment in Coal India Limited or its subsidiaries. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners seek in substance implementation of the said scheme. The learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 4079 of 2016 referred the matter to us in following terms:- “This Court prima facie feels that this scheme is against the constitutional provisions. This scheme introduces a new mode of appointment which is appointment by inheritance and nomination. This is also just two years before the actual date of superannuation. By virtue of this scheme, a female employee works 2 years short of her superannuation and thereafter, after obtaining VRS gets her dependent in permanent employment in Coal India Ltd. This hereditary mode of appointment prima facie violates Article 16 of the Constitution. Can this type of appointment be legalised, as an exception to the general rule, as is in a case of compassionate appointment when an employer dies in harness and his heir is appointed to overcome the immediate financial hardship. Validity of this scheme has to be tested first. In view of the above this writ petition be placed before a Division Bench after the approval of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to decide the issue whether the scheme of Female VRS or any of the provisions of the scheme floated by Coal India Ltd. violates the provision of the Constitution of India or not.” 2. No specific point of law for reference has been formulated in the five other writ petitions, but the Hon’ble referring Judges upon taking note of the opinion expressed and the course adopted in W.P. (S) No. 4079 of 2016 and finding similar point of law to be involved in these proceedings have referred these matters also. 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. in which the Bench has found such scheme to be unconstitutional. 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. 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.” 4. In the aforesaid decision, the Coordinate Bench relied upon several authorities, including the following:- (i) Yogender Pal Singh vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 631 (ii) V. Sivamurthy vs. State of A.P. (2008) 13 SCC 730 (iii) Surender Paswan vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 6 SCC 680 5. That judgment dealt with a similar voluntary retirement scheme for female employees of the year 2002 which was modified from time to time. That judgment dealt with a similar voluntary retirement scheme for female employees of the year 2002 which was modified from time to time. We are apprised by the learned counsel for the parties that so far as the present scheme is concerned, that is similar in all respects with the earlier scheme forming the subject-matter of L.P.A. No. 340 of 2016, barring the age at which a female employee was to superannuate, which has been extended to 58 years in the scheme involved in these six writ petitions. 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 cannot 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. This answers the reference. 9. We also do not think that any purpose would be served in keeping the writ petitions pending upon answering the reference. We take up for hearing the writ petitions themselves on consent of the learned counsel for the parties and dismiss these petitions for the reasons already expressed by us. 10. The connected applications shall also stand disposed of, as we have disposed of the main writ petitions.