D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 897 of 2015 order, dated 30th June, 2016, whereby, the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the decision of the respondents-authorities not to give benefit of Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 to the appellant for securing employment of her son and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellant was working as Class-IV employee as Security Guard with the respondents. The respondents had drafted a scheme in the year 2002 which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, which is known as ' Special Female Retirement Scheme1. The scheme was modified on 16th July, 2003 and the said modification is at Annexure-3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. As per the aforesaid scheme, female employee, who has not completed 50 years (as per the modified scheme, 55 years) of: age, may seek voluntarily retirement by written application and if her son is eligible to give employment, he will be given employment with the respondents-Company.
(3.) It further appears that this scheme was never operated for any of the female employees. Appellant (original petitioner) applied for voluntary retirement on 11th/14th December, 2002. The application was under consideration and the scheme was brought to an end on 08.06.2006, as per the Annexure-L to the counter affidavit filed in this Letters Patent Appeal by the respondents........;