- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satya Prakash for the respondent Corporation.
(2.) THE relief claimed in this petition is for a mandate to the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner No. 1 for compassionate appointment on the post of handling labour. The Food Corporation of India, which is an instrumentality of the State framed a scheme and issued a circular dated 3-7-1996 relating to compassionate appointment of the dependents of deceased and retired handling labourers. The scheme which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, stipulates that any handling labour who is granted voluntary retirement on medical ground before attaining the age of 55 years, would be entitled to nominate within three months an dependent for compassionate appointment keeping in mind the financial condition of the family. Admittedly, the age of retirement in the Corporation for such labour is 60 years. The petitioner No. 2, was a handling labour in the Corporation and sought voluntary retirement on medical ground when he was about 53 years and the said application was accepted vide order dated 13- 6-2002 and he retired with effect from 30-6-2002. He nominated his son, petitioner No. 1, for the benefit of the aforesaid scheme for compassionate appointment within stipulated time and his application was duly processed. He submitted requisite medical certificate and appeared before a committee of three officers of the Corporation. He was found fit and the requisite check list etc. were prepared by the respondent No. 3 for the purposes of his appointment and duly forwarded in October, 2002. However, no further action was taken and the matter remained pending, forcing him to prefer this petition.
(3.) IN the counter-affidavit the substantial facts have not been denied. However, it is pleaded that the scheme provided for in the circular dated 3-7-1996 has been amended vide circular dated 4-3-2003 under which a ceiling of 5% vacancies have been placed for grant of such compassionate appointment and on that basis it is contended that since no vacancy is available, no appointment can be given to the petitioner. It is further alleged that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Food Corporation of INdia v. Food Corporation of INdia Workers Union, (L. A. P. No. 1672 of 2005) has affirmed the scheme of circular dated 4-3-2003 and has held vide its order dated 30-1-2006 that every such compassionate appointment is hedged by the ceiling placed by the said circular even though the application is made prior to 4-3-2003. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that at least two Division Bench of our Court in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Ghanshyam Prajapati [special Appeal No. (600) of 2005] decided on 29-9- 2005 and in District Manager, Food Corporation of India v. Ranjeet Mahto [special Appeal No. (908) of 2006] decided on 22-11-2006 have held that the subsequent circular of 4-3-2003 would not cover the cases of prior period and none of the two judgments have been considered by the Delhi High Court.;