Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THOUGH the matter has been called in the second round, none has been appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
(2.) SINCE the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short 'respondent -Corporation'), declined the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds vide order dated 13rd July, 2004; the petitioner has instituted the instant writ proceedings praying for the following relief(s): - - "A) by way of writ order or direction, the order dated 3.7.2004 Annexure -4 may kindly be quashed and set aside. B) by way of writ order or direction, the respondent may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on a suitable post. C) any other appropriate writ, order or direction to which the petitioner may be entitled to in the circumstances of the case may be issued in his favour; D) cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner." Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that his father, who was appointed as Operator on 6th January, 1984, and was posted at Udaipur, died while in service on 10th April, 1987. The petitioner was born on 10th April, 1987. Having acquired the age of 16 years on 10th April, 2003, and requisite qualification of Class -X (Secondary); addressed an application to the respondent -Corporation, by the Registered Post on 23rd July, 2004, claiming appointment on compassionate grounds, which has been declined by the respondent -Corporation vide impugned order dated 13rd July, 2004. The petitioner was specifically informed that the policy for employment under the Superannuation Benefit Funds Scheme (for short 'SBF Scheme'), did not exist at the time of death of his father; therefore, his prayer could not be acceded to. However, a copy of the SBF Scheme was not furnished to the petitioner, but the SBF Scheme came into existence with effect from 1st November, 1987. Father of the petitioner expired on 10th April, 1987, just three months earlier to the date when the SBF Scheme became operative, and therefore, denial on that count is arbitrary. Moreover, when the respondent -Corporation itself framed the SBF Scheme, the same should not be confined only to the dependant of the deceased employee after 1st November, 1987. Thus, the claim of the petitioner ought to have been considered.
(3.) IN response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent -Corporation has filed its counter affidavit pleading that all the admissible terminal benefits were settled and released in favour of the nominee of Late Shri Lalbahadur Soni i.e. Smt. Rama Soni. The Scheme for "Employment of Dependant of Employee", which was in vogue at the relevant time, contemplated that if the dependent of the deceased desired to get employment, an application for the same was to be submitted within a period of 12 months from the date of death or permanent disablement of the employee. In case employment is not sought; the spouse was eligible to receive a lump -sum payment including compassionate gratuity, which will be equal to 30 months' Basic Pay last drawn by the deceased employee subject to a minimum of Rs. 25,000/ - and a maximum of Rs. 50,000/ - in lieu of employment. Admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner is 10th April, 1987. The dependent wife of the deceased (Smt. Rama Soni) opted and accepted the benefit of compassionate gratuity without any demur, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Moreover, the writ petition suffers with the vice of delay and laches.;