- 1 - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4998/2004 (Bharat Kumar Sharma vs. Secretary, Ajmer, Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 5/5/2008 HON’BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Vineet Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.Sumeet Mehta, for the respondent. Reportable In this case petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground and further prayed that alternatively respondents may be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner on 19/3/2002. According to facts of the case, petitioner while claiming himself to be adopted son of Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma filed an application for providing appointment on compassionate ground under the scheme framed by the respondents for granting voluntary retirement to the in- service candidate on the ground of disability or incapacity. In the scheme it is provided that in the event of taking voluntary retirement by any incapacitated person, one ward of the employee will be provided appointment on compassionate ground. The father of petitioner Shri N.K.Sharma was working on the post of UDC and while working on the said post, he - 2 - filed an application Annex.1 for seeking voluntary retirement on the basis of his physical condition. In the application, it is specifically prayed that though he has completed more than 28 years of service but due to his health problem he may be given voluntary retirement in accordance with the Scheme framed by the Board. In the application father of petitioner specifically stated that he is ready to seek voluntary retirement if his ward – petitioner, adopted son is provided appointment by the Board. The application of the father of petitioner for the purpose of providing voluntary retirement and to provide appointment to petitioner on compassionate ground under the Scheme was rejected vide order Annex.3 dated 2/6/99 in which it is stated by the respondents that there is no provision for providing appointment on compassionate ground if employee is seeking voluntary retirement on medical ground. After rejection of above application another application was filed while inviting attention towards the fact that in case of other employees the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground has been given while accepting application of voluntary retirement but without providing appointment under the Scheme the application of the petitioner was accepted in part. The petitioner is challenging the action of respondents for not considering his case under the Scheme though father of petitioner was given voluntary retirement. - 3 - After filing this writ petition, an application was filed by the petitioner for taking certain documents on record along with application Annex.A/9 dated 3/1/1998 by which as many as 32 persons were appointed under the said Scheme. The petitioner’s case is that similar treatment should have been given to him by providing him appointment on compassionate ground because under the Scheme even in 1998 number of persons were provided appointment, which is evident from Annex.A/9, therefore, action of respondents is in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and reasons mentioned in Annex.3 are totally contrary to their action, therefore, petitioner is claiming direction to the respondents for providing appointment on compassionate ground in the event of seeking voluntary retirement by his father under the scheme framed by the respondents. In reply to the writ petition, it is contended by respondents that petitioner is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground because there is no documentary evidence on record relating to his adoption by Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma was filed and secondly it is contended that the scheme was one time scheme and petitioner’s candidature was not considered on the ground that an application was filed by Shri N.K.Sharma which is placed on record as Annex.R/3 in which Shri N.K.Sharma made a prayer that he may be given voluntary retirement even if appointment is not provided as per his prayer to his ward. Therefore, rejection of - 4 - petitioner’s claim is in accordance with Rules and at the time of considering the case of voluntary retirement of father of petitioner there was no provision for providing appointment to the ward of an employee who is seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that no medical report was submitted by the petitioner which is given by the Medical Board consisting of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajsamand, therefore, he is not entitled to seek any relief or direction by this Court for providing appointment on compassionate ground. Having considering the entire material on record and hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, admittedly the scheme was framed by the respondents on 5/5/1995 in which it was specifically provided that as per decision of the Board those employees who become physically handicapped or incapacitated or are having such physical ailment owing to which they are not in a fit condition to discharge their official duties should be identified in first phase. In the second phase such employees including officers should be persuaded to seek voluntary retirement from the Board's service and as a good will gesture the Board is likely to appoint one of his dependents. Meaning thereby, a decision was taken by the respondents for persuading those employees to seek voluntary retirement who have become physically unfit to discharge their official duties. Admittedly, an application was filed by petitioner’s father Shri N.K.Sharma - 5 - which is Annex.1. The said application was considered objectively and in consonance with the scheme framed by the respondents but upon perusal of Annex.3 it is clear that though the application was filed in 1996 but his application was rejected in 1999 while saying that there is no provision in the Rules for providing appointment on compassionate ground in the event of seeking voluntary retirement due to incapacity of an employee. I am unable to accept such plea because in the year 1998 as many as 32 persons were provided appointment, therefore, obviously petitioner’s case was to considered under the scheme but it is evident from Annex.3 that application of petitioner’s father was rejected on the ground that no such provision is in existence, whereas, scheme was framed by the respondents in the year 1995 and application was filed by petitioner’s father in 1996, therefore, respondents are under obligation to consider the application filed by petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground in the event of seeking voluntary retirement on medical ground. Obviously, petitioner is required to fulfill the eligibility conditions mentioned in the Scheme, therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground under the Scheme framed by them for providing such appointment in the event an employee seeks voluntary retirement on medical ground. - 6 - In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the candidature of petitioner being ward of Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma, an employee of Board, who was given voluntary retirement under a Scheme within a period of two months from today. However, respondents are at liberty to assess the eligibility of petitioner in accordance with the scheme so framed by them. No order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. Pankaj Baweja