JUDGMENT S. Rafat Alam and Vikram Nath, JJ.
1. This appeal arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.03.2005 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.
2. We have heard Sri R.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The short facts giving rise to this appeal is that the father of the appellant No. 1 who is also the appellant No. 2 was working as handling labour in the office of Food Storage Depot at Azamgarh under the Food Corporation of India. The Food Corporation of India issued a circular dated 02.02.1977. It was modified by circular dated 03.07.1996. The said circulars provide that the workers who seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds and apply within the age limit of 55 years may avail the benefit of appointment of a dependant on compassionate ground. The appellant No. 2 who was admittedly working as handling labour in view of his bad health applied for giving premature retirement and also providing appointment to his son appellant No. 1 as per aforesaid circular. The respondents though accepted the request of retirement and accordingly retired the appellant No. 2 on attaining the age of 55 years but declined to provide appointment to appellant No. 1 on the ground that the application has been moved beyond the specified period and was delayed by 2 months 20 days. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that once the request of the employee in terms of the circular dated 03.07.1996 is accepted and the order of retirement was passed it was incumbent on the respondents to provide appointment simultaneously to the son of such retired employee. He further placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in a similar case being Special Appeal No. 579 of 2005 Nizamuddin and Anr. v. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Kanpur Nagar and Anr., decided on 11.05.2005 wherein the direction was issued to give appointment to the appellant therein within 7 days from the date of service of copy of the order on the respondents or in any event within three weeks from the date of the order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly admitted that the facts and controversy involved in both the appeals are identical. It was however contended that the application was moved after two months 20 days and, therefore, the request was not accepted. The circular dated 03.07.1996 which is annexed as Annexure 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the appeal inter alia provides that the benefit of compassionate ground appointment shall be extended to the dependant of the departmental workers who seek voluntary retirement on the medical ground on their own request subject to the conditions contained in the procedure of circular of clauses (i) to (ix). It is not in dispute before us that the appellant No. 2 is in the employment of the respondents and admittedly his request under the aforesaid circular for giving voluntary retirement on medical grounds is accepted. It is also not in dispute that his son appellant No. 1 has claimed appointment under the same circular. We are of the view that once the respondents have accepted the request for retirement of the employee under the aforesaid scheme on medical grounds then they are obliged to consider the claim of giving appointment to the dependant of such employee/worker and his request cannot be turned down on some technical ground. That apart the controversy being covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court , this special appeal also deserves to be allowed. The special appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is also allowed. We accordingly direct the respondents to provide employment to the appellant No. 1 within a week from the date of production of certified copy of this order, provided the appellant No. 1 fulfills all the formalities as required under the circulars.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.