- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to substitute the petitioner's son Ajesh Kumar against the service of the petitioner in terms of order dated 13.12.2001 purportedly issued on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner was asked to nominate the name of his son for substitution of his employment in the light of the medical report dated 04.01.2001 and 28.03.2001 as contained in Annexures 1 and 3 to the writ application. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are that the petitioner was employed under the respondent B.S.L. Sometime in March, 1995, he had suffered an accident in course of employment sustaining injuries due to which he became unfit for carrying on his duty. The Medical Board had later declared him fit in the month of October, 1995 whereafter he resumed his duties and for the period of his absence, Special Disability Leave was sanctioned to him. Subsequently, the physical condition of the petitioner appears to have deteriorated in as much as, he claims to have suffered a paralytic stroke. Considering his condition, the petitioner by invoking the benefits of the scheme floated by his employer, had prayed for substitution of his son for employment in his place.
(3.) AS it appears, by letter dated 13.12.2001 issued by the Respondent No. 1, the petitioner was asked to nominate the name of his son for substitution of employment. The petitioner did supply the name and accordingly, a panel was prepared in which the name of the petitioner's son was included. However, by the time the name of the petitioner's son could be considered for his absorption in employment, the petitioner had superannuated from service in normal course on 30.04.2002. The petitioner's claim for substitution of his son for employment, was thereby frustrated. Notwithstanding such facts, the petitioner pursued with the respondent authorities for a reconsideration for substitution of his son for employment.;