Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Ushama Devi & Ors

Biswanath Somadder, J

By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.

The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 18th April, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 25944(W) of 2017 (Ushma Devi vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: -

"The Director (Personnel), Eastern Coalfields Limited being the respondent no. 5 herein is directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner in terms of the Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015 by recording the date of birth of the nominated son as mentioned in his Matriculation Certificate.

The authorities are directed to take a decision in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order."

The instant appeal has been preferred by Eastern Coalfields Limited (a subsidiary of Coal India Limited).

After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the pleadings on record as well as the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner - at the time of filing of the writ petition - was an employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited. Eastern Coalfields Limited is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. Coal India Limited floated a scheme on 16th December, 2015, under the name and style of "Coal India Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015". According to the said scheme, a regular/permanent female employee was eligible to opt for the scheme subject to the condition that she must have completed 10 (ten) years of service but must not have completed 58 (fifty-eight) years of age as on the date of notification of the scheme. The age of the nominated son of the optee under the Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015, must be within the age group of 18 (eighteen) to 30 (thirty) years as on the date of notification of the scheme. The minimum qualification required - as per the scheme - was matriculate or its equivalent. The scheme was effective for a period of six months from the date of its notification.

Admittedly, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner opted for the scheme within time by a letter dated 16th December, 2015. By the said letter dated 16th December, 2015, she nominated her son for appointment. This application of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner was rejected by a letter dated 12th August, 2016, whereby she was informed that due to glaring variation in age mismatch in respect of the date of birth of the nominated son in the service record of the female employee and the testimonials of her nominated son and due to lack of clarity of the case, the competent authority did not agree to dispense with service of the female employee in lieu of employment of her son and further it did not satisfy the objective and essence of the Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015. This letter of rejection dated 12th August, 2016, became the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition.

The learned Single Judge - it appears - took into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case, including the materials on record and also the provisions of the Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015. The learned Single Judge also took note of the contents of the service book/record of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, which was annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the authorities. From the service book/ record, the learned Single Judge noticed that the date of birth of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner's son was mentioned 10 (ten) years as on 1996. No specific date of birth of the nominated son was mentioned in the service book/ record. The respondent no.1/writ petitioner, however, relied upon the matriculation certificate issued in favour of her son by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education wherein the date of birth of her nominated son was mentioned as 19th April, 1995. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, took into consideration the Implementation Instruction no. 76 of Coal India Limited wherefrom it appears that for determination of the date of birth, those candidates who have passed matriculation or its equivalent examination, the date of birth recorded in their matriculation or its equivalent examination certificate shall be treated as the correct date of birth. The learned Single Judge has observed to the effect that even assuming that recording of the age of the nominated son of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner in the service book/ record was correct, even then the age of the nominated son would fall within the permissible age limit as mentioned in the Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015. According to the Court, as the son of the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner was a matriculate, the concerned authorities ought to have taken into consideration the date of birth that was mentioned in the matriculation certificate submitted by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner at the time of opting for the Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015.

During the course of hearing of the matter before the learned Single Judge, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner relied upon a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, reported in AIR 2014 SC 1975, wherein the Supreme Court held that the age mentioned in the matriculation certificate issued by the Board should be treated as correct.

The submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge to the extent that the authorities misdirected themselves and arbitrarily rejected the prayer of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner were taken into consideration. The learned Single Judge also took note of the submissions advanced by the concerned Coal Company (being the appellant herein). Such submissions included; the scheme was no longer in operation and no relief could be granted to the writ petitioner in the instant case. The writ petitioner was not treated as a surplus employee and accordingly she was not covered as per the said scheme. The Implementation Instruction no. 76 was applicable only in respect of appointees and employees and the same could not be made applicable in respect of the nominated son of the writ petitioner.

The following observations made by the learned Single Judge are considered by us to be relevant: -

"Since the petitioner applied when the Scheme was in operation and the authorities illegally rejected the case of the petitioner accordingly it is not open for the respondents to contend that the Scheme has expired in the meantime and the case of the petitioner cannot be considered.

The objection of the respondents that the petitioner was not covered by the said scheme cannot be raised at this stage as the only ground for rejection of the case of the petitioner was the mismatch in the date of birth of the nominated son of the petitioner and lack of clarity in the case. The authorities cannot take a new and/or fresh grounds of rejecting the prayer of the petitioner.

The contention that the Implementation Instruction cannot be made applicable in case of the nominated son of the petitioner do not have any legs to stand upon in view of the fact that the respondents are themselves applying the said instruction for determining the age of a candidate for the purpose of appointment. The same guideline ought to be followed for the purpose of determining the age of an aspiring appointee. The authorities misdirected themselves and came to an erroneous conclusion that there was lack of clarity when in fact the date of birth was very clear from the Matriculation Certificate."

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the learned Single Judge held that the impugned letter/order dated 12th August, 2016, could not be sustained and accordingly set it aside.

The discussions of the learned Single Judge as referred earlier clearly reveal that the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons.

In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts of the instant case - on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order - we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity.

However, while the concerned authority of the appellant shall take a decision in the matter - in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge - the said authority shall not travel beyond the scope of the Special Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2015 and while coming to a decision, the concerned authority shall not consider as hindrance the fact that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner has retired after the impugned judgment and order was rendered and during the pendency of the instant appeal.

The timeframe for taking a decision in the matter by the concerned authority of the appellant, however, stands extended by a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a photostat certified copy of this order.

The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly.