JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 8265 of 2019 This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 77 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal. 2. No counter affidavit to the Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8265 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 77 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 553 of 2019 6. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 29.04.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1609 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder the claim sought for by the writ petitioner for appointment of her son in terms of a scheme floated by Coal India Limited, namely, Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2014 (Revised), was refused to be granted by dismissing the writ petition on the ground that aforesaid scheme has been declared to be unconstitutional. 7. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under : The writ petitioner is a permanent employee of respondent-company working as General Mazdoor under M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘M/s BCCL’). While working as such, M/s Coal India Limited floated a scheme, namely, Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2014 (Revised), which was applicable to all its subsidiaries including M/s BCCL and was made effective from 26.11.2014 to 25.05.2015, wherein a provision was made that female worker deployed in non-technical job may opt for the scheme subject to the condition that the female worker must have completed 10 years of service but must not have crossed 55 years of age on the date of receipt of her application and further nominated son of the optee must be within the age group of 18 to 35 years on the date of receipt of such application and his minimum educational qualification would be literate and the competent authority under said scheme will be Director (Personnel). It is the case of the writ petitioner that she applied for voluntary retirement from service exercising her right to get her son employed in her place but due to laches on the part of respondents-authorities, the matter was kept pending. It is further submitted though initially the son of the petitioner was found medically unfit by the respondents-authorities but later on he was declared medically fit for employment by the Apex Medical Board, but the authorities have not taken any decision for employment of the son of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 1609 of 2019 seeking direction upon the respondents-authorities to provide employment to the son of the petitioner under the Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2014 (Revised). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition taking into consideration the fact that the scheme itself has been declared unconstitutional and held that no benefit can be granted to the petitioner under the said scheme, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed gross error in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of declaration of Scheme, 2014 to be unconstitutional, which was in the midst of the application made by the petitioner for providing appointment and as such the scheme having been declared to be invalid after making such application the said invalidity of the scheme will not come in the way of the consideration of the grievance of the writ petitioner, but, without appreciating the aforesaid fact since the writ petition has been dismissed, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be justified and hence the same is fit to be quashed and set aside by allowing the instant intra-court appeal. 9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL has submitted that since the scheme itself has been held to be invalid and once it has been declared to be invalid it goes to the date of issuance of the aforesaid scheme or its framing and if the learned Single Judge, taking into consideration has dismissed the writ petition it cannot be said to suffer from any error. It has been submitted that the submission made on behalf of appellant-petitioner that since application has already been filed in course of pendency of its consideration, the aforesaid scheme has been declared to be invalid, it will not affect the pending consideration and the same cannot worth to be considered taking into consideration the fact that once the scheme has been declared to be invalid it will go from the date of its framing; meaning thereby, the scheme is said to have been non-existent from its origin and as such there is no question of consideration of pending application on the basis of non-existence of the scheme. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has well been considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, which requires no interference by this Court. It has also been submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has already decided the issue in the case of Somarin Bai vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors. in L.P.A. No. 759 of 2019 vide order dated 5th April, 2021 and as such in terms of the said order the instant intra-court appeal may be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 11. The dispute raised in the writ petition is about non-consideration of claim of appointment of the writ petitioner under the scheme floated by Coal India Limited known as ‘Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2014 (Revised)’. The aforesaid scheme provides that that female worker deployed in non-technical job may opt for the scheme subject to the condition that the female worker must have completed 10 years of service but must not have crossed 55 years of age on the date of receipt of her application and further nominated son of the optee must be within the age group of 18 to 35 years on the date of receipt of such application and his minimum educational qualification would be literate and the competent authority under said scheme will be Director (Personnel). Initially, the son of the writ petitioner was found medically unfit by the Medical Board of the company but later on he was found medically fit by the Apex Medical Board, as alleged by the petitioner but even then when no employment was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner approached to this Court by filing writ petition which was dismissed on the ground that the scheme itself was declared unconstitutional, therefore, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner. 12. The issue has been raised herein that since the application was already filed by the petitioner for consideration of appointment of son of the petitioner under the said scheme and in course of pendency of the said application since the scheme has been rendered to be invalid, therefore, it will not affect the pending consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge has considered that aspect of the matter and dismissed the writ petition considering the fact that once the scheme has been rendered to be invalid it will go to the root and it will be treated to have non-existent from its origin and as such there is no question of consideration of the case of the writ petitioner on the basis of scheme which is having no existence. 13. This Court, is of the view that there is no reason to differ with the view taken by learned Single Judge reason being that once the Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2014 (Revised) has been rendered to be invalid it will go to the root; meaning thereby, it will be treated to have non-existent from its origin and as such it will have no force from its origin, hence there is no question of consideration on the basis of pending application. 14. It requires to refer herein that issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Somarin Bai vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors. 14. It requires to refer herein that issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Somarin Bai vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 759 of 2019), which was dismissed vide order dated 5th April, 2021 taking into consideration the fact that 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 2014, whose life was also only six months, there was no application preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner and, under the short-lived scheme of the year 2014 also, this appellant cannot get any benefit. The relevant paragraph 15 of the judgment rendered in Somarin Bai (supra) is quoted as under : “15. So far Issue No. (I) is concerned, admittedly the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has taken into consideration the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) Nos. 1622 of 2017, 1537 of 2016, 2590 of 2016, 4079 of 2016, 4407 of 2016 and 7051 of 2016 as also in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2016. We have considered the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2016, which was disposed of on 23.08.2017, as has been appended as Annexure 17 to the instant memo of appeal, from which we have gathered that Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court has however, not declared the aforesaid scheme to be ultra virus. But admittedly, the view has been taken with respect to 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 2014, whose life was also only six months, there was no application preferred by the appellant and, under the short-lived scheme of the year 2014 also, this appellant cannot get any benefit. Hence, there is no substance in the 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 30.06.2016. For ready reference, the operative portion of order dated 23.08.2017 passed in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2016 is quoted hereunder as : “14. Hence, there is no substance in the 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 30.06.2016. For ready reference, the operative portion of order dated 23.08.2017 passed in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2016 is quoted hereunder as : “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 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 the 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.” Thus, it is evident that in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2016, the constitutional part of the aforesaid scheme was not under consideration however, the Division Bench has refused to take contrary view with the order passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court, which was subject matter of the aforesaid appeal by taking a view that no relief can be granted under the aforesaid scheme. In course of hearing, when this Court put forth query upon the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant as to whether the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2016 has attained its finality, no response has been furnished. It further requires to refer herein that the order passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench in W.P. (S) Nos. 1622 of 2017, 1537 of 2016, 2590 of 2016, 4079 of 2016, 4407 of 2016 and 7051 of 2016 under which the constitutionality of the aforesaid scheme has been raised, has held at paragraph 7 as under : “7. It further requires to refer herein that the order passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench in W.P. (S) Nos. 1622 of 2017, 1537 of 2016, 2590 of 2016, 4079 of 2016, 4407 of 2016 and 7051 of 2016 under which the constitutionality of the aforesaid scheme has been raised, has held at paragraph 7 as under : “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.” It is evident from the above referred paragraph that the co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court has come to a conclusive finding that the scheme in question cannot survive the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the reasoning furnished by the Co-ordinate Bench in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2016 has been accepted. Further, such a scheme would not be capable of being legally enforced as such the writ petitioners cannot claim any vested right for enforcing the scheme, which is ex-facie unconstitutional. Admittedly, the writ petitioner approached before the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging the order dated 25.02.2019 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2772 of 2018 but the same was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the same before the Division Bench of this Court, as such, the impugned order herein is order dated 25.02.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2772 of 2018. We, therefore, have travelled again to the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2772 of 2018, wherefrom it is evident that the writ petition was dismissed based upon the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) Nos. 1622 of 2017, 1537 of 2016, 2590 of 2016, 4079 of 2016, 4407 of 2016 and 7051 of 2016 as also L.P.A. No. 340 of 2018. Since the order passed by the Division Bench passed in W.P. (S) Nos. 1622 of 2017, 1537 of 2016, 2590 of 2016, 4079 of 2016, 4407 of 2016 and 7051 of 2016 as also L.P.A. No. 340 of 2018. Since the order passed by the Division Bench passed in W.P. (S) Nos. 1622 of 2017, 1537 of 2016, 2590 of 2016, 4079 of 2016, 4407 of 2016 and 7051 of 2016 as also L.P.A. No. 340 of 2016 is binding upon the learned Single Judge, therefore, we cannot take any contrary view and if learned Single Judge relying upon the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P. (S) Nos. 1622 of 2017, 1537 of 2016, 2590 of 2016, 4079 of 2016, 4407 of 2016 and 7051 of 2016 has dismissed the writ petition we find no error in the impugned order. In view thereof the order passed by learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. Issue No. (I) is answered accordingly. 15. This Court, on the basis of fact that the issue has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Somarin Bai (supra), is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity. 16. Accordingly, the instant intra-court appeal fails and is dismissed.