D. P. WADHWA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a handling labour working in the Food Corporation of India ( fci for short) has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ restraining the respondents from terminating his services or forcing him to retire voluntar- ily. A writ of prohibition in the negative form is also prayed restraining the respondents from not allowing to perform light duty as the petitioner was presently doing, and yet another prayer is that petitioner be allowed to change his cadre from handling labour to ancillary worker. There are four respondents. AM are officers of the FCI, a statutory corporation established under the Food Corporation Act, 1964. On 4 September 1992 when this petition was taken up for the first time for hearing for admission notice was issued to show cause as to why the same be not admitted and at the same time by interim order it was directed that services of the petitioner be not terminated and he be given light duty. The respondents have since filed their answer to show cause notice and have opposed the reliefs claimed by the petitioner. Rejoinder thereto has also been filed. ( 2 ) THE main functions of the FCI include procurement of goodgrains, its movement, storage and distribution. FCI has a vast network of distribution system of foodgrains in Delhi. Foodgrains are supplied to over 3000 fair price shops in Delhi where there are six food storage depots. Earlier the manual work relating to loading, unloading, stacking, weighment of stock was being carried out through the labour employed by the handling and transport contractors. Then there was agreement with the workers union of the FCI under which it was decided to introduce departmentalisation in various food storage depots, and fixation of labour strength in each depot, and payment criterial etc. were finalised. On the basis of the agreement so arrived at between the FCI and the Union four categories of labours were created, namely, Sardar, Mandal, Handling Labour and Ancillary Labour. Duties and responsibilities of each category of labour were specified. The petitioner was appointed as a handling labour which category he accepted. Respondents say that the petitioner is a piece-rated worker and is paid on the basis of actual output of handling of foodgrain bags as per the scales of wages and other benefits as per the wage structure. Duties and responsibilities of each category of labour were specified. The petitioner was appointed as a handling labour which category he accepted. Respondents say that the petitioner is a piece-rated worker and is paid on the basis of actual output of handling of foodgrain bags as per the scales of wages and other benefits as per the wage structure. This fact is, however, denied by the petitioner. It is stated he is not a piece-rated worker as alleged and that he is a regular employee paid in time scale of pay. Though the respondents have filed the wage structure with their reply giving complete particulars, there is no denial to this by the petitioner and he has not placed any document on record to prove his claim that he is not a piece-rated worker and that he is a regular employee paid in time scale of pay. This contention of the petitioner lacks particulars. ( 3 ) PETITIONER says he was performing his duty to the complete satisfaction of the FCI. On 2 February 1991, the Chief Labour Inspector of the FCI referred the case of the petitioner to the Medical Superintendent, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, who found him suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The petitioner was advised light. duty. The Chief Labour Inspector recommended light duty to the petitioner by letter dated 15 May 1991. Case of the petitioner was referred by the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital to G. B. Pant Hospital. ( 4 ) BEFORE the petition was taken up for admission, the petitioner amended his petition and now he stated that he had to work in godowns where small insects were found on the bags, particles of grain were flying which entered the lungs of the petitioner through respiratory system and affected his lungs adversely. He said no safeguards had been provided by the respondents against occupational hazards. ( 5 ) THE respondents have denied the allegations made by the petitioner. They deny that the services of the petitioner were satisfactory and said that he never maintained punctuality in attending to his duties and was rather in the habit of remaining absent without any prior intimation or authorised leave. They said that notices had to be issued to him on various occasions calling him back to his duties. Respondents deny that the petitioner could have picked up his disease while working with the respondents. They said that notices had to be issued to him on various occasions calling him back to his duties. Respondents deny that the petitioner could have picked up his disease while working with the respondents. They say their stocks were being funigated at regular intervals and were kept in gunny bags properly stitched. There was no question of their being any insects found inside or outside the bags or particles of grain found flying all over. They say no other staff member has ever complained about the working conditions in the godowns and even the petitioner never made any such complaint earlier. Respondents say when the petitioner was medically examined it was clearly stated by the medical authorities that the lungs of the petitioner were clear. Respondents say that reference was made to the Medical Superintendent, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, to find out nature of the disease of the petitioner and on the recommendation of the medical authorities the petitioner was provided light duty from 5 January 1990 to 15 July 1992. This they say was over and above the period prescribed under the rules as per the agreement between the respondents and the workers union of the petitioner. Respondents say they are not aware if any reference was made by Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital to G. B. Pant Hospital. They say that F. C. I, had formulated Voluntary Retirement Scheme for departmental workers which include the petitioner and that the scheme is also meant for old and infirm workers, and under the scheme additional monetary benefits have been provided over and above to which the workers were entitled to at the time of their superannuation. Respondents say that cases of providing light duty as per the instructions are considered only in respect of workers who are injured while on duty and if so recommended by the competent authority. This facility is also provided to the workers who suffer from prolonged illness on account of certain specified diseases. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any of these diseases. Respondents say that the request for change of cadre from handling labour to ancillary labour was considered but it was not covered under the rules and as such not acceded to. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any of these diseases. Respondents say that the request for change of cadre from handling labour to ancillary labour was considered but it was not covered under the rules and as such not acceded to. They say petitioner was informed on 17 June 1992 that he had already availed of the facility of light duty as provided under the rules and, therefore, he should seek voluntary retirement failing which the respondents would be within their right to consider his case for dispensing with his services on medical grounds. The petitioner did not respond to this letter and again he was remineded on 30 June 1992. Respondents then submit that the petitioner has become medically unfit to perform the job for which he was appointed and public funds cannot be disburse to him without his doing any work. They say respondent FCI cannot afford to pay wag5s to the petitioner which are otherwise required to be earned by him only after handling required number of foodgrain bags for more than the period allowed under the rules. They say in order to imtigate financial problem of the petitioner it was suggested to him to seek voluntary retirement. As noted above, respondents say there is no provision in the existing rules to change the cadre of the workers. They say the strength of the workers required in each category is assessed on the basis of yard-stick laid down for thepurpose and in case the petitioner is allowed to continue on light duty against the rules the respondents will have to pay incentive wages to other workers for getting the work of the petitioner done and on the other hand respondents will have to pay wages to the petitioner without any work. They say in FCI which is subsidised by the Government of India they cannot beallowed to pay wages without any work for which the petitioner was appointed. They say even otherwise respondents will have to face tot of difficutties in maintaining public distribution system and ensure timely issue of stocks to general pablic because then number of such workers will come forward for change of their cadre or providing Night duty indefinitely thereby creating a force of such workers more than the actual requirement. ( 6 ) WE are of the opinion the stand taken by the respondents is correct. ( 6 ) WE are of the opinion the stand taken by the respondents is correct. They have been quite indulgent to the petitioner. Mr. Vohra, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to adecision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress and others, 1990 (61) FLR 768, where the court observed that employment under the public undertakings was a public employment and a public property, and that it was not only the undertakings but also the society which had a stake in their proper and efficient working. Then the court said as under :- "both discipline and devotion are necessary for efficiency. To ensure both, the service conditions of those who work for them must be encouraging, certain and secured, and not vague and whimsical. With capricious service conditions, both discipline and devotion are endangered, and efficiency is impaired. " ( 7 ) REFERENCE was also made to another decision of the Supreme Courtin Anand Bihari and others v. Rajasthan State Road Trabsoirt Corporation, 1991 (62) F. L. R. 81 wherein the court observed as under :- "in other words, the Corporation has taken an unhelpful stand in the matter. The scheme with which it has come out is both unrealistic and impracticable. The Corporation has not appreciated that what we had asked them was to formulate a scheme of relief which is the legitimate due of the workmen and not ascheme on compassionate or charitable basis. The workmen are not denizens of an Animal Farm to be eliminated ruthlessly the moment they become useless to the establishment. They have not only to live for the rest of their life but also to maintain the members of their family and other dependents, and to educate and bring up their children. Their liability in this respect at the advanced age at which they are thus retired stands multiplied. They may no longer be of use to the Corporation for the job for which they were employed, but the need of their patronage to others intensifies with the growth in their family responsibilities. " ( 8 ) WE are unable to see how the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two decisions are applicable to the present case. " ( 8 ) WE are unable to see how the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two decisions are applicable to the present case. Here the scheme and rules have been framed by the respondents in consultation with the workers union and they formulated a voluntaty retirement scheme which is basically meant for old and infirm workers and is beneficial to them. ( 9 ) WE cannot grant any of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Interim order made earlier is vacated.