SBCWP No.3488/01. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3488/2001. Mohd.Amin & Anr. Vs. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Date of order : November 21, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ None present for the petitioners. Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma for respondent No.1. **** BY THE COURT :- This matter was called in the first round but no one was present for the petitioners and even in the second round, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, matter is being decided after considering arguments of the writ petitioner and upon hearing learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2) Petitioners have filed this writ petition with the prayer that respondents be directed to appoint petitioner No.1 on any post on compassionate ground and respondents may further be directed to release the salary and other allowances of any of the SBCWP No.3488/01. 2 post available with them w.e.f. 8/10/1999 with interest @24% p.a. 3) Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that father of petitioner No.1 and late Shri Mohd.Ismail, husband of petitioner No.2- Smt.Norran Bano were working with the respondents at Surahari Kala Padad, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. He sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31/12/1999. The application was accepted vide order dated 3/10/1999 and was directed that he shall stand retired from the services of the respondents w.e.f. 31/12/1999. In the meanwhile, however, he died in October, 1999 even before the voluntary retirement came into effect. It was contended that family of the petitioner is facing great hardship and passing through financial crises. Petitioner No.1 who is graduate be provided compassionate appointment and salary for the aforesaid period be paid. 4) Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has opposed the writ petition and argued that there is neither any Rule nor Regulation or even Instructions providing for compassionate appointment to the deceased employee of the respondent-Corporation. In fact, deceased employee applied for voluntary retirement which was accepted but he unfortunately died before the date of his voluntary retirement could reach. He has however SBCWP No.3488/01. 3 contended that additional benefits under the scheme have been floated by the respondent and approximately a sum of Rs.8 lacs have been paid. The scheme was floated because of non-availability of work with the respondents and due to this, hundreds of other employees became surplus. The Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. (MECL) has been adjudged to be a non-viable organization by an expert committee of the Ministry of Mines, Government of India and, therefore, this scheme was floated by the Corporation in 1992. It was argued that at the relevant time, loss of the company soarded approximately to Rs.72.78 crores and its entire capital has been eaten away by its losses. A financial statement of the Government of India was produced on record to substantiate this. Even otherwise, the company is not in a position to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 5) Having considered the arguments raised by both the parties, I find that since there is no provision or rule providing for appointment on compassionate ground for the dependants of the deceased employee of the respondent-Corporation, the positive direction for granting such appointment cannot be issued more particularly when already more than seven years have been passed. Besides, the respondents have also cited the reason that as per the recommendations made by the experts appointed for SBCWP No.3488/01. 4 the purpose by Ministry of Mines, Government of India, the respondent-company was adjudged a non- viable company and hundreds of its employees have been declared surplus. The company therefore floated the scheme of voluntary retirement under which, more than 2000 employees were retired voluntarily. It was the conscious decision of the company when it was adjudged as non-viable. Upon acceptance of the case of the deceased employee of the respondent- Corporation before his death, therefore, the respondent cannot given compassionate appointment to petitioner No.1 nor the salary for the subsequent period. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 6) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this judgment be endorsed to petitioner No.1 for information. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil