IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19373 of 2010 SANJAY KUMAR @ SANJAY LAL DAS, SON OF LATE BISHWAMOHAN LAL DAS, MOTHER’S NAME LAT SMT. DURGA DEVI, RESIDENT OF QRS. NO. F-2/30, REFINERY TOWNSHIP, I.O.C. BARAUNI REFINERY, BEGUSARAI, BIHAR. Versus 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION THORUGH GENERAL MANAGER, REGISTERED OFFICE AT G-9, ALIYABAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA(EAST) MUMBAI-400051. 2. DEPUTY MANAGER(EMPLOYEE’S RELATION) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BEGUSARAI, OIL REFINERY, BEGUSARAI. ----------- 02. 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the IOC). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the contents of letter dated 1.10.2010, Annexure-1 of the Deputy Manager (Employee Relations), I.O.C., whereunder request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected with reference to Rule 3 of the Scheme for Rehabilitation of the family of the employee dying or suffering permanent disablement while in service(hereinafter referred to as the Scheme), Annexure-2 as on the date of application petitioner was 37 years of age and not qualified for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground, as the maximum age for such appointment is 32 years and petitioner was 37 years of age on the date of application. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that perusal of Rule 3 of the Scheme would indicate that thereunder exemption is allowed to those who does not possess the qualification for - 2 - appointment by 3-7 years and if petitioner is allowed such exemption in the matter of upper age limit, his case may be considered for such appointment. 4. Having perused Rule-3 of the Scheme, it does not appear that thereunder any exemption can be allowed to a candidate for appointment on compassionate ground who has crossed the upper age requirement on the date of application. In such view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 1.10.2010, Annexure-1. The writ application is dismissed, however with observation that petitioner is at liberty to exercise option under Rule-1, 2 of the Scheme. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)