A. K. DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) THE Petitioner is represented by his learned Advocate. There is none to represent any of the Respondents. No Affidavit-in-Opposition has either been filed by any of the Respondents as yet despite opportunities granted to them. The Respondents are absent even today without any step, even though the matter is pending since 1990, suggesting that they have nothing to oppose the Writ Application filed by the Petitioner. ( 2 ) THE Petitioner, who was Driver under the Calcutta State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) has filed the instant Writ Application praying the Court for an Order upon the Respondents to offer suitable employment to his son in terms of the provisions of the disablement Retirement Benefit Scheme, along with other reliefs prayed for, in terms thereof for the reasons stated therein. It was however, submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner during the hearing that his pensionary benefits has mostly been paid to him by the Respondents in terms of the order of the Court and he now prays for an order upon the Respondents for offering suitable employment to his son and for releasing his remaining pensionary benefits/dues, which have not been paid as yet, in the facts and circumstances stated in the Writ Application. ( 3 ) UPON hearing the submissions of Learned Advocate for the petitioner and perusal of the record, it appears that the C. S. T. C. / by circular Nos. 4915 (19) C. S. T. C. date August 18, 1989 and 5441 (19) C. S. T. C. date September 2, 1989, being Annexure 'a' to the Writ Application, had informed all the Drivers and Conductors of the C. S. T. C. that the State Government had approved the introduction of disablement Retirement Benefit Scheme (hereinafter referred to as Scheme) in the C. S. T. C. and only those Drivers and Conductors who have done heavy duty or performed duty in heavy vehicles would get benefit thereunder upto March 31, 1990, and had set forth a number of benefits under the said scheme, including giving employment to the son or any dependent male member of the family of a Driver/conductor who would retire voluntarily under the said Scheme, subject to the availability of vacancy, in terms of Clause 5 (Ka) of the aforesaid Circulars (Annexure "a" ). ( 4 ) THE Petitioner, who has joined the C. S. T. C. as Driver on November 11, 1965 and had been working as a Driver under the Corporation for more than 20 years, bearing badge No. 126. had made an application dated October 31, 1990 to the Authorities concerned seeking voluntary retirement in lieu of service for his son in terms of the said Scheme, for which options were sought for thereunder, well within the period specified therein. It would appear from the Annexure "d" to the Writ Application that the Authority concerned by their letter dated February 14, 1990 had accepted the option exercised by the Petitioner seeking voluntary retirement, in terms of the aforesaid Scheme with effect from March 1, 1990 (F. N.)I,indicating therein that his service under the Corporation would terminate with effect from the forenoon of March 1, 1990. It was further clearly indicated by the concerned authority therein that he would get all retirement benefits, such as C. P. Fund, Gratuity, Leave Salary etc. , as may be admissible to him under the normal Rules of the Corporation, and that suitable employment of his son/any male dependent member of his family, as prayed for by him, would be offered, subject to the availability of vacancy. It would also appear from the Annexure "c" to the Writ Application that the Petitioner's son, Nemai Chandra Das, had also made an Application dated October 31, 1989 to the concerned Authority of the Corporation praying for providing him any suitable job, having regard to his qualification, ability etc. , as indicated therein, in view of the voluntary retirement of his father under the aforesaid Scheme. , as indicated therein, in view of the voluntary retirement of his father under the aforesaid Scheme. The Petitioner in his subsequent Application filed before the Court for taking into consideration subsequent events, supported by Affidavit affirmed on November 11, 1991, has contended in paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof that he has later on come to know that the C. S. T. C. has offered appointments to the sons/ dependent relatives of some of the employees whose services have been terminated under the aforesaid Scheme, further stating therein that one Sri Gangadhar Shyam, Driver No. 2909, having taken voluntary retirement on September 29, 1991 (subsequent to the voluntary retirement to the petitioner under the aforesaid Scheme), his son Sri Hemanta Shyam was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk, who had joined the Corporation on April 25, 1991 under the aforesaid Scheme. Even though the petitioner is placed in similar circumstances with all other employees whose services have been terminated under the aforesaid Scheme, yet the Respondent being biased and prejudiced against him, has not offered any appointment to his son, whereas they are offering appointment to the sons of other employees, similarly placed with him. ( 5 ) THE aforesaid contentions of the Petitioner in his Writ Application, and his subsequent Application for taking into consideration subsequent events, which are all supported by Affidavits, have not been controverted by any of the Respondents by filing any Affidavit-in Opposition. The Petitioner's aforesaid contentions clearly, therefore, remain unchallenged and uncontroverted. The Court is, therefore, left with no option but to accept the aforesaid contentions of the Petitioner. ( 6 ) THE Respondent Authorities appear to have held out by their Declaration in the aforesaid Scheme that the Drivers and Conductors who have done heavy duty or performed duty in heavy vehicles would get benefit thereunder (Scheme) upto March 31, 1990, setting forth therein a number of benefits, including giving employment to the son or any dependent male member of the family of a Driver/conductor who would retire voluntarily under the said Scheme. By their said representation by way of declaration in the aforesaid Scheme they clearly appear to have induced the Petitioner and made him seek voluntary retirement on the said declaration that his son would be offered suitable employment in view of his voluntary retirement under the Scheme. By their said representation by way of declaration in the aforesaid Scheme they clearly appear to have induced the Petitioner and made him seek voluntary retirement on the said declaration that his son would be offered suitable employment in view of his voluntary retirement under the Scheme. By their subsequent act by their letter dated February 14, 1990 (vide Annexure "d") the Respondent-Authorities had accepted the Petitioner's option for voluntary appointment and had terminated his service under the Corporation with effect from the Forenoon of March 1, 1990, further clearly indicating therein in paragraph 3 thereof, that suitable employment of his son/any male dependent member of his family, as prayed for by him, would be offered, subject to the availability of vacancy. The Petitioner would not certainly have exercised his option for voluntary retirement under the aforesaid Scheme had the said representation by way of declaration under the said Scheme not been made by the Respondent-Authorities, which was further compounded by their subsequent act by letter dated February 14, 1990 as indicated above The failure/neglect on the part of the Respondent-Authorities to offer suitable employment to the Petitioner's son as yet despite lapse of more than five years since his voluntary retirement with effect from March 1, 1990 under the aforesaid Scheme, in spite of availability of vacancy, as alleged by the petitioner in the aforesaid, facts and circumstances, seems to be nothing short of practicing deception/fraud upon him (Petitioner ). Such -like conduct on the part of the Respondent/ Authorities who are expected to act reasonably, fairly and promptly is indeed highly responsible. They are under obligation to offer suitable employment to the Petitioner's son, in the aforesaid circumstances. ( 7 ) IT has been submitted by the Learned Advocate for the Petitioner during the hearing by producing an original conductor Licensing Authority at Barrackpore, that the Petitioner's son Nemai Chandra Das is now eligible to work as Conductor under the C. S. T. C. in view of the licence so granted to him. ( 8 ) IN view of the discussions above, the Respondent-Authorities are directed to offer suitable employment to the Writ Petitioner's son, Sri Nemai Chandra Das, forthwith, if there be any suitable vacancy. If there is no suitable vacancy for him at present, he must be offered suitable employment, as soon as such vacancy occurs. ( 8 ) IN view of the discussions above, the Respondent-Authorities are directed to offer suitable employment to the Writ Petitioner's son, Sri Nemai Chandra Das, forthwith, if there be any suitable vacancy. If there is no suitable vacancy for him at present, he must be offered suitable employment, as soon as such vacancy occurs. The said Nemai Chandra Das shall be the first person to be appointed, as and when any such vacancy occurs hereafter. The Respondent-Authorities shall also consider his case for appointment as a Conductor under the Corporation in view of the licence obtained by him. The Respondent Authorities are also directed to pay/clear all outstanding retirement dues/benefits, if any, as may be admissible to the writ petition, within a week from the date of communication of this order. If such dues/benefits, if any are not paid/cleared to him within the aforesaid period, the Respondent Authorities shall pay him interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of communication of this order till the date of payment. And if his outstanding dues/ benefits are not paid/cleared (to him) within four months from the date of communication of this order, the Respondent-Authorities shall pay him interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date of communication of this order till the date of payment. All such dues/benefits, if any, must, however, be paid/ cleared by the Respondent-Authorities within six months from the date of communication of this order, which time limit shall be peremptory and mandatory. ( 9 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. In view of the conduct of the Respondent-Authorities as indicated above, they shall pay costs of this hearing to the Writ Petitioner, assessed at Rs. 1,000/- only.