RAM GOPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Present writ petition has been filed praying for following relief which is being quoted below: " (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27-6- 2001 (Annexure No. 5) and 30-3-2005 (Annexure No. 9) passed by respondent No. 2. (ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to follow the judgment and direction contained in the Raj Naik's case and consider the claim petitioner No. 1 for appointment on compassionate ground. "

(2.) BRIEF fact as disclosed in the writ petition is that petitioner No. 2 had been working in the office of District Manager, Food Corporation of India Limited as Handling Labour Gang No. 14, Token No. 518, Food Storage, Varanasi. Petitioner No. 1 is the son of petitioner No. 2 and claiming compassionate appointment in view of the departmental circular dated 3-7-1996 issued by the Food Corporation of India Ltd. , in exercise of power vested under Section 45 of the Food Corporation Act for the purposes of regulating and extending the benefit of the appointment of next kith and kin of Handling Labours of the Corporation who sought voluntary retirement on medical ground. Board of Director's in 24th meeting held on 10-6-1996 has approved the aforesaid proposal and pursuant thereto Circular dated 3-7-1996 had been issued. Petitioner No. 2 had applied for being superannuated on medical ground and in this respect letter dated 10-10-2000 has been sent by respondent No. 3 and petitioner No. 2 has been superannuated on medical ground on 31-10-2000 It has been contended that application has been moved for providing compassionate appointment to petitioner No. 1 and in this regard a committee was constituted. Said committee on 3-3-2001 found petitioner No. 1 physically fir for loading and unloading of the 100 kgs. and 50 kgs. food grain bags on his back. Thereafter on 27-6-2001 communication was sent to the effect that the claim of petitioner No. 1 cannot be adverted to as same was time barred. Against the same representation was moved and thereafter again claim of petitioner No. 1 has been rejected. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Parity has been sought to be drawn qua the judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Nath Yadav and Anr. v. The Senior Regional Officer, Food Corporation of India and Anr. , a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.

(3.) AFTER pleading mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.