Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioner could not be appointed P.R. UG Miner/ Loader under Special (VRS)F on the ground that he was medically unfit as he was suffering from "LE Divergent Squint-Unfit below ground", as communicated by order dated 20/22.06.2009 bearing no. 3699 (Annexure-4). This employment was sought under the Female voluntary retirement scheme where under the female employee under the Coal Company was entitled to take voluntary retirement on attaining a particular age before the normal age of superannuation and nominate one of her dependant for permanent employment in Coal India Limited or its subsidiaries. Petitioner's mother had sought voluntary retirement under the said scheme which was processed and she was also permitted to retire on 07.11.2002, as is evident from communication dated 09.11.2004 (Annexure-1) between the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Lodna Area, BCCL and the Personnel Manager(M&PR), Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad. Rejection of claim for employment of the petitioner however become the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition filed on 22.07.2017 only.
(3.) The Special Female Voluntary Retirement scheme has been held unconstitutional by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sumitra Devi Vs. M/s Coal India Ltd. Kolkata & others in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2016. The Respondent employer chose to issue another such scheme in 2015, which again become the subject matter of challenge by certain applicants/ dependants in W.P.(S) No. 1622 of 2017 and other analogous cases, which was decided by the order dated 27.08.2018. The Division Bench of this Court of which undersigned was also a member inter alia held as under:- "5. 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". ;