Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Aparesh Kumar Singh, J., dismissed a writ petition filed against the order of the respondent authorities whereby petitioner’s claim, for appointment in place of his mother under the Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, was rejected.

The main issue that arose before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment in place of his mother under the Female VRS Scheme.

The Court observed that under the Female VRS Scheme, 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 dependents for permanent employment in Coal India Limited or its subsidiaries. However, this scheme was declared unconstitutional by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sumitra Devi v. Coal India Ltd. Kolkata, L.P.A. No. 340 of 2016. If a scheme is declared unconstitutional then no legally enforceable right could flow from it.

The Court held that since the scheme was declared unconstitutional, no person can claim benefit under such a scheme. The Court held that though the mother of the petitioner had resigned from her duties so that the petitioner could derive the benefits of the scheme since it has been declared unconstitutional, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief. As far as the loss of employment of the petitioner’s mother is concerned, the Court refrained itself from touching upon that aspect since the mother of petitioner was not a party to the instant writ petition. Resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed.[Jitram Manjhi v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.,2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 1448, order dated 22-10-2018]

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court


Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.