04/ 15th April 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.84 of 2011 SANJAY KUMAR @ SANJAY LAL DAS SON OF LATE BISHWAMOHAN LAL DAS, MOTHER’S NAME LATE-SMT. DURGA DEVI, R/O QUARTERS NO.F- 2/30, REFINERY TOWNSHIP I.O.C. BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI, BIHAR……………………...PETITIONER/APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,INDIAN OIL, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION THRU GENERAL MANAGER, REGISTERED OFFICE AT G-9 ALIYABAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-400051. 2. DEPUTY MANAGER (EMPLOYEES RELATION) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BEGUSARAI, OIL REFINERY, BEGUSARAI……….RESPONDENTS. ----------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody appears for the Indian Oil Corporation. 2. The claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation on the ground that maximum age for the appointment in question is 32 years whereas on the date of application the appellant was 37 years of age. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the scheme for compassionate appointment contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. He submits that Rule-3 or for that matter any of the Rules contained in 2 Annexure-2 do not require that the applicant must not be above 32 years of age on the date of application. Factually, that submission is correct. There is no such separate requirement of general nature laid down in the scheme contained in Annexure-2. Rule-3 mentions that for employment of those who are otherwise eligible, suitable and are dependent wards of the deceased employee or disabled employee, the provisions laid down in Rule-3 shall apply. 4. The subsequent provision in Rule-3 provide for grant of more time to enable an applicant to acquire the minimum qualification of Matric + ITI in the related trades or either higher induction level qualification as per the existing policy. For acquiring such qualification maximum waiting period of three years may be extended up to seven years. But there is no provision for relaxing the age requirement for an applicant for compassionate appointment. 5. The term “otherwise eligible and suitable” clearly indicates to the general requirement or eligibility requirement for appointment under the IOC. There is no good material to take a different view than what has been 3 taken by the learned single Judge. Hence, we are unable to interfere in the matter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)