The petitioner sought appointment of her son under the Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015. The Court dismissed the writ petition, noting the similar issue was already decided in W.P.(S). No. 2938 of 2019, where the Scheme was held unconstitutional. No interference warranted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1122 of 2020
----------
Laxaminia Devi
… Petitioner
- V E R S U S –
… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR S. N. PATHAK
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate ---------
05/16.12.2021 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment of her son under Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015.
At the outset, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition have already been decided by of this Hon’ble Court in its order dated 22.08.2019 passed in W.P.(S). No. 2938 of 2019 (Ram Pyari Devi Vs. the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors.), wherein the Hon’ble Court after hearing the parties, has been pleased to dismiss the said writ petition, holding therein that:
“In view of the pronouncement made by the Division Bench in the case of Sumitra Devi-Vs.-M/s. Coal India Ltd., Kolkata & Ors. in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2014 and also in other batch of writ petitions in W.P. (S) No. 1622 of 2017 in the case of Fir Kuwar-Vrs.-Coal India Limited & others (supra) , the Scheme has been held to be unconstitutional. As such, no
2
illegally enforceable right can be prosecuted on the part of the aggrieved person like the petitioner for employment.
Resultantly, no ground for interference is made out.
The writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby
dismissed.”
Learned counsel for the respondents accedes to the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and raises no objection to it.
After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter as the similar issue fell for consideration before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S). No.
2938 of 2019 (Ram Pyari Devi Vs. the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors.), and vide order dated 22.08.2019, this Court taking into consideration the various orders passed by this Court, dismissed the said writ petition and as such, now nothing remains to be adjudicated by this Court.
As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, I do not find any merit in the instant case.
Resultantly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
kunal/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a petition for appointment under the Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015 given prior dismissal of similar petitions holding the scheme u
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Pyari Devi Vs. the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors.Followed¶16
W.P.(S). No. 2938 of 2019 (Ram Pyari Devi Vs. the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors.)
Sumitra Devi-Vs.-M/s. Coal India Ltd., Kolkata & Ors.Followed¶17
Sumitra Devi-Vs.-M/s. Coal India Ltd., Kolkata & Ors. in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2014
Fir Kuwar-Vrs.-Coal India Limited & othersFollowed¶17
W.P. (S) No. 1622 of 2017 in the case of Fir Kuwar-Vrs.-Coal India Limited & others
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Laxaminia Devi
The Bharat Coking Coal Limited
The General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited
The Area Manager, Barari Colliery
The Protect Officer, Barari Colliery
Dr. S. N. Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
