JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Shalini Kumari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arpan Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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. 3. 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. The 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. She 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 was rejected. 4. Aggrieved with this, the present writ petition has been filed for a direction to appoint the son of the petitioner under the said scheme. 5. Mr. Arpan Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the said rule has been said to be ultra vires in the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in L.P.A. No.340 of 2016 in 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. The paragraph no.14 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “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.” 6. 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 hereinbelow: “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. 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. 7. 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 Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that is why the L.P.A. No.340 of 2016 was dismissed. 8. In view of the Division Bench judgment, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition [W.P.(S) No.2965 of 2019] stands dismissed. 10. A.I., if any, also stands dismissed.