Smt. Tetri Devi vs M/s. BCCL and Others

R.R. Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and (Sic)earned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner (Sic)hile was working as canteen kamin at Dahibari Colliery, Nirsa, Dhanbad (Sic)pplied for voluntary retirement under the scheme known as VRS (Female) (Sic)cheme 1992 so that her nominee Ashok Chouhan be given employment and this (Sic)ffer of the Petitioner got approval which is evident from Annexure-1 and that (Sic)titioner while offering herself for voluntary retirement had disclosed the name (Sic) the nominee as Ashok Chouhan, who is related as son-in-law of the Petitioner (Sic)t Ashok Chouhan was never given employment under the scheme on the (Sic)etext that verification regarding relationship in between the Petitioner and the (Sic)shok Chouhan could not be ascertained which cannot be a legal ground for frustrating the claim of Petitioner and, therefore, the authorities be directed to take Ashok Chouhan in employment.

However, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that though Annexure 1 does show that name of this Petitioner got approved for voluntary retirement but that has never been finally accepted as because the Respondents, in the meantime, were trying to ascertain the relationship in between the Petitioner and the Ashok Chouhan but when it could not be ascertained, the Petitioner was allowed to work till the date of her superannuation, i.e., till 30.6.2007 and during this period, all the wages due to the Petitioner was given and under that situation, under the voluntary retirement scheme, dependent of the employee is not entitled to be taken in service and this proposition has been laid down by this Court in a case of The Secretary Mazdoor Sangathan Samiti of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Employer in relation to the Management of Katras Project Area of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Another, .

Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties it does appear that the Petitioner though applied for voluntary retirement under the VRS scheme which even finds approval by the letter dated 13.2.1992 as contained in Annexure-1 but according to BCCL, the voluntary retirement of this Petitioner was never accepted as relationship in between the Ashok Chouhan, nominee of the Petitioner and the Petitioner could not be ascertained and the Petitioner was allowed to work till her retirement on superannuation and even the Petitioner took the wages for the period she worked. Under that situation and keeping in view the ratio laid down in the case of The Secretary, Majdoor Sangathan Samiti of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Employer in relation to the Management of Katras Project Area of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Anr. (supra), I do not find any merit in this case and hence, this application is rejected.