Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 478 (JHR)

Hasina Khatoon W/o. Safayat Miya v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Jharkhand

2022-04-21

RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Defect pointed out by the office is ignored. 3. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.06.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2965 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed refusing to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner for consideration of the case of the son of the petitioner for his appointment under Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015. 4. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- It is the case of the writ petitioner that she was a permanent employee at the Jealgora Central Workshop under Lodna Area of BCCL as a Mechanist/Turner, Category-IV for more than 20 years. The respondent-CIL announced a scheme “Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015”, under which the writ petitioner submitted application for providing appointment to her son Md. Ibrahim Ambar Ali. The further case of the writ petitioner is that despite having the requisite qualification for the post, her application for the appointment of her son was rejected on the ground that she belonged to Category IV which is a superior grade, hence, it was difficult to appoint her son under the given scheme. Thereafter, the writ petitioner sent a legal notice dated 01.04.2019 to the General Manager of Lodna Area of BCCL stating that since her son had successfully cleared the verification and interview rounds, his candidature should be accepted otherwise she would have to go to the court. The case of the writ petitioner, having not been considered in the light of the aforesaid Scheme, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2965 of 2019. The respondent Coal India Limited appeared and contested the case by referring to the issue having been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.340 of 2016 (Sumitra Devi v. M/s Coal India Ltd., Kolkata & Others) vide judgment dated 23.08.2017. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, has dismissed the writ petition against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, has dismissed the writ petition against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant, has submitted that the Coal India Limited since has come out with the Scheme in the name and style of “Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015”, for the benefit of female but has not been followed by negating the claim for appointment of the son of the writ petitioner in her place and, as such, the respondent Coal India Limited has acted arbitrarily but the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact in right perspective and has dismissed the writ petition by putting reliance upon the judgment passed in L.P.A. No.340 of 2016 (Supra) and, as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. While on the other hand, Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted by referring to the order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court wherein the issue has already been decided by holding the aforesaid Scheme to be unconstitutional and once the aforesaid Scheme has already been held to be unconstitutional, there is no reason to seek a direction on the basis of the said Scheme for appointment in favour of the son of the writ petitioner and the learned Single Judge, if has dismissed the writ petition after taking into consideration the aforesaid legal aspect, the same cannot be said to suffer from any error. Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.759 of 2019 (Somarin Bai v. M/s. Bharat Coking coal Ltd., and Others) wherein similar relief has been negated by putting reliance upon the order passed by Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.340 of 2016 (Supra). 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 8. The issue has been raised by the writ petitioner for providing appointment in favour of her son on the basis of the Scheme, i.e., “Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015”. 8. The issue has been raised by the writ petitioner for providing appointment in favour of her son on the basis of the Scheme, i.e., “Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015”. The fact about non-existence of the aforesaid Scheme is not in dispute, since the learned Single Judge has considered the order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.340 of 2016 (Supra). The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact that similar Scheme has already been held to be unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.340 of 2016 (Supra), has held that there is no reason to seek a direction upon the respondents on the basis of “Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015”. 9. We have perused the order passed in L.P.A. No.340 of 2016 (Supra) which was disposed of on 23.08.2017 from which we have gathered that the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court has, however, not declared the aforesaid scheme to be ultra vires. But admittedly, the view has been taken with respect to the aforesaid scheme that 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 only six months and, as such, there is no reason to provide appointment on the basis of the said Scheme. The relevant paragraph required to be referred, i.e., paragraph 14, is extracted hereunder :- “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 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.” 10. Further, this Court has also taken into consideration the same issue in L.P.A. No.759 of 2019 (Supra), wherein after putting reliance upon the order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.340 of 2016 (Supra), which has attained finality, similar claim has been negated and, as such, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petitioner-appellant is not entitled for any relief, as has been prayed for in the instant appeal. 11. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.