J.S.Khehar, J. - (1.) The father of the petitioner is stated to have commenced to discharge duties as a handling transport labourer under a contractor for the Food Corporation of India in 1993. During the course of arguments, it was acknowledged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that till the death of the petitioner's father in harness on 24.12.1996, his father continued to discharge duties as a handling transport labourer under the Three Members Committee constituted by the Food Corporation of India.
(2.) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, who was the dependent son of his father, claims compassionate appointment on account of the fact that his father had died in harness. This claim of the petitioner emerges from a settlement arrived at between the Food Corporation of India and the Employees Union on 5.4.1995 (which was circulated on 29.5.1995).
(3.) Despite the fact that the settlement expressly noticed that the same would be effective from 1.1.1995 to 31.12.1997, it is the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, based on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur and Ors. that the settlement under reference would continue till it was superseded by a subsequent settlement. It is not necessary for us to delve into this issue for an effective determination of the controversy in hand, and as such, we refrain from recording any conclusion in this behalf.;