- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for the following relief: '' (i) For issuance of writ of mandamus or in nature thereof commanding/directing the respondents to accept the voluntary retirement of the petitioner under specials voluntary retirement scheme for which she had applied in the year 2000 itself, (ii) For a further direction to Respondents to make the appointment of Yne son o1 Yne petitioner namely Jogeshwar Nonia under the aforesaid scheme.
(2.) IN the instant case the petitioner had earlier moved in W.P.(S) No. 3571 of 2001 whereby the Hon ble Court vide order dated 8.8.2001, disposed of the same with direction and observation to consider representation. Again the petitioner moved this Hon ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 303 of 2002 and the Hon ble Court vide order dated 11.1.2002 dismissed the same accepting the Respondent's stand. Thereafter the petitioner moved this Hon ble Court in L.P.A. No. 146 of 2002 challenging the order dated 11.1.2002 which was also dismissed by this Hon ble Court vide order dated 15.8.2002. However, the instant writ application is being filed in view of the fact that earlier stand of Respondents was falsified as per fresh development according to which the age of petitioner on the date of her application for V.R.S. was less than 55 years (D.O.B. 12.7.1948 admitted by Respondents) and her son was entitled to be employed being 18 years of age as required under the scheme. In Annexure -11, annexed to the writ petition, which is at page -41 of the paper book the Personnel Manager, Jamunia OCP vide its letter dated 28.4.2002 has specifically stated that the General Manager (P&IR) had mentioned the date of birth of Barati Kamin as 17.10.1945 due to which her V.R.S.(F) resignation application was rejected. Whereas her D.O.B. in all the records of Jamunia OCP in respect of Smt. Barati Kamin is 12.7.1948.
(3.) IT will be evident on reading the aforesaid facts that an incorrect and misleading statement was made on affidavit which led to the dismissal of the earlier writ petition as well as the L.P.A. and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any order obtained on fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is a nullity right at the inception and the respondent -Management are guilty of contempt and perjury for filing false affidavit.;