Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-The petitioner-appellant No. 1 Khet Singh Rathore (since deceased and deleted) was employed as a driver with the respondent since 1958. While, he was driving the tank-truck of the respondent, on 23.07.1988 he suffered a stroke and became paralyzed. As a result of which he was found to be permanently disabled as certified by the Doctor vide his Certificate dated 212.1988. By that time, the petitioners services before retirement was due for about 1 ½ years. As per his date of birth his superannuation date was 31.01.1990. 2. In the aforesaid scenario, before the Doctor actually issued a certificate of permanent disability, the petitioner considering his position moved an application on 10.09.1988 pointing out that he has become permanently disabled and he is unable to discharge his duties, requested the respondent to offer appointment to his son, the petitioner No. 2, pointing out that he has five children who are unmarried and unemployed which included three unmarried daughters and the petitioner No. 2 at the relevant time was only 21 years of age. In this connection, he also invited attention of the respondent to para No. 24.1 of Memorandum of Settlement between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and the Workmen of the Marketing Division which had been arrived at between the Corporation and Representatives of Union of Workmen. Para 24.1 of the said settlement envisages as under: "24.1 : In case of death or permanent total disablement of a workman during service, one of the dependents, i.e. wife, son or unmarried daughter will be provided with a job by the Corporation on compassionate grounds within one year commensurate with the qualification and experience provided he/she is otherwise eligible for employment. If there is no regular vacancy, a supernumerary post will be created to be adjusted as soon the regular vacancy arises. Detailed procedure in this regard will be laid down by the Corporation in consultation with Union. Subject to a dependents son/unmarried daughter of a retired workman meeting the job specifications and other things being found equal by the Selection Committee he/she will be given preference in employment in the Corporation against a regular vacancy to be filled as per the recruitment procedure. It is open to the Union to bring to the notice of the Corporation specific cases of dependents whose claim to employment are not accepted. It is open to the Union to bring to the notice of the Corporation specific cases of dependents whose claim to employment are not accepted. Such cases will be investigated by the Management and the decision of the Management will be communicated to the Union." 3. It was also pointed out that the said settlement was in force at the time when the petitioner No. 1 had suffered such permanent disability. 4. The petitioner also submitted the certificate (Annexure-2) dated 212.1988 issued from the Physician & Cardiologist, Senior Medical Officer stating that the petitioner was under best possible treatment since 23.07.1988 but regrettably his recovery is negligible and he is totally and permanently disable and unfit for Heavy Vehicle Driving job or for any other job forever. 5. The application dated 10.09.1988 of the petitioner was under process and consideration as it appears from Annexure-4 dated July 11, 1989 informing the Secretary, Petroleum Workers Union that the matter is under sympathetic consideration of the Management and the decision will be taken as per the policy of the Corporation and due weightage will be given in the case of employment of Shri Khet Singhs son (petitioner No. 2) son. However, when no further communication was received, the petitioner No. 2 made an application dated 23.01.1990 Annexure-5 calling upon the respondent to his fathers application and seeking employment under the Corporations Rules and Regulations for offering employment to the wards of permanently disabled employees on compassionate ground in compensation of fathers disability. Meanwhile, the father of the petitioner No. 2 (since deceased) superannuated on 31st January, 1990. After the retirement of petitioner No. 1 Khet Singh Rathore, the petitioner No. 2 served a notice of demand of justice Annexure-9 dated 22.06.1992 referring to the application made by his father that Devendra Singh, son of Khet Singh Rathore may be given appointment as dependent of his father Khet Singh Rathore, which was replied to by the respondent that since Khet Singh Rathore, which was replied to by the respondent that since Khet Singh Rathore has not been discharged from service but he has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be given under the said Rule. However, the respondent also referred to the other rule which provided for giving preference in employment to the dependent son or unmarried daughter of a retired employee against the regular vacancy and as per recruitment procedure subject to other things being found equal. 6. This denial to offer appointment on compassionate ground led to filing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4479/1992 seeking directions to the respondent to give suitable employment to the petitioner No. 2 and any other relief , favourable to the petitioner may be granted. .7. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents denying the claim of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that since the father of petitioner No. 2 Khet Singh Rathore (since deceased) had not been discharged from the service on account of permanent disability but was allowed to continue in service and has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, the benefit of Rule for giving the appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependent of deceased or discharged employee on account of permanent disability cannot be offered to him. It was also stated in the reply .that Khet Singh Rathore took all the benefits upto the date of his retirement and he availed all the leave benefits with full pay including the special sick leave of 289 days, hence his dependent son namely Devendra Singh, is not entitled to get any employment with the Corporation on compassionate ground. Since the case of Khet Singh Rathore should be treated as a case of retirement, question of giving employment to dependent does not arise. 8. Other pleas were also taken in the reply that Khet Singh Rathore did not make an application within one month of the incident as provided under Clause 2 of the Settlemtn relied upon by the petitioner. But the application for giving appointment on compassionate grounds was made on 10.09.1988 whereas he (petitioner No. 1 Khet Singh Rathore) suffered paralytic attack on 23.07.1988. Had the application been moved within one month, his son could have been given employment without giving any benefits of special leave with pay to Shri Keht Singh Rathore. 9. But the application for giving appointment on compassionate grounds was made on 10.09.1988 whereas he (petitioner No. 1 Khet Singh Rathore) suffered paralytic attack on 23.07.1988. Had the application been moved within one month, his son could have been given employment without giving any benefits of special leave with pay to Shri Keht Singh Rathore. 9. It has also been stated in the reply that if the name of the petitioner No. 2 (son of petitioner No. 1 Khet Singh Rathore) was sponsored by the employment exchange against the notification issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, his case will be considered alongwith others subject to the recruitment norms. 10. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that since the petitioner Khet Singh Rathore had worked with the respondent up to the age he attained the superannuation and was superannuated after completing the full term on attaining the age of superannuation, benefit of Rule requiring offering appointment on compassionate ground to his dependent on the basis of the scheme in force cannot be given. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. .11. So far as the settlement between the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and its workmen which has been renewed from time to time is concerned, the position that stood as on the date of appellant suffered permanent physical disability is that:- ."Vide settlement dated April 13, 1983 which came into force after expiry of the earlier settlement whose operative period was to end on 31 March, 1981 were to cover the period up to September 30, 1985 and were to continue until replaced by fresh settlement. The benefit extended to the workmans dependent in the case of death or in the case of permanent total disablement or in the case of retirement were governed by Para 24.1 quoted above." 12. The benefit extended to the workmans dependent in the case of death or in the case of permanent total disablement or in the case of retirement were governed by Para 24.1 quoted above." 12. This settlement was replaced subsequent to the expiry of the period of settlement by another settlement which came into existence between the parties on 18th September, 1986 which did not make any new provisions in respect of the benefits extended to the workmen but envisaged under Para 22-A that the Settlement shall be valid from October 1, 1985 i.e. With effect from October 1, 1985 and shall continue to be binding until terminated as provided under Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it also envisaged that the parties hereby agree that the terms and conditions of service prevailing prior to signing of this Settlement and which are not varied by this Settlement shall continue as if specifically provided for in this Settlement. In the preamble of the Settlement, in the opening terms of the Settlement it was also stated that this Settlement covers the period commencing from October 1, 1985 of September 30, 1989 and shall continue to be operative until replace by fresh settlement. 13. Thus, so far as on the date when the paralytic stroke suffered by the petitioner No. 1 Khet Singh Rathore on 23rd July, 1988 is concerned and has resulted in permanent physical disability of the employee of the respondent and this was certified by the Doctor later on who certifies that it is not curable and thus he had suffered the above disability during the continuance of the Para 24.1 quoted above. In terms, the Para 24.1 does not make it a condition precedent for offering compassionate appointment to one of the dependent i.e. Wife, son or unmarried daughter and was not depending on the permanent disabled workman who has been discharged from services on attaining the age of superannuation. 10.14. In term, it became a benefit extended to the dependent of the workman who has been permanently and totally disabled during the service. 10.14. In term, it became a benefit extended to the dependent of the workman who has been permanently and totally disabled during the service. If that provision is read in its letter and spirit it does not leave it to the discretion of the employer inasmuch as it cast imperative obligation on the employer to offer appointment in such case even by creating a supernumerary post if there is not regular vacancy available and that post be adjusted as soon as regular vacancy arises in future. From the procedure prescribed by the Corporation which has been produced vide Annexure-8 alongwith writ petition, it appears that the Annexure-8 speaks about the date from which he or she ceases to be in service. Apparently, the cessation of the services in the aforesaid circumstances can be said to be resulting from permanent disablement of the employee from the service and not discharge from services in the discretion of the employer. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondent has urged that the term of Settlement between the employer and its workmen which was operative under the Settlement dated 18th September, 1986 read with Article of Settlement dated 13th April, 1983 was superseded with coming into force of the HPCL Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme. That scheme had come into force with effect from 13th May, 1988, prior to the date the incumbent (petitioner No. 1 Khet Singh Rathore) had suffered paralytic stroke as a result of which he became permanently disabled. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that from mere sufferance of the paralytic stroke, it cannot be said that the workman became totally disabled as on the date he suffered the said stroke, but it must be related to the date when a competent Medical Officer certifies him to be totally disabled so as his employment cannot be continued. In this connection it was pointed out that as on the date the application was made for offering appointment to Devendra Singh, the dependent of the permanently disabled workman on the compassionate grounds, no such medical certificate by the competent authority declaring the petitioner No. 1 (Khet Singh Rathore) to be permanently and totally disabled person came into existence. In such circumstances, the application could not have been considered and after the medical certificate to that extent was produced by the petitioner No 1. In such circumstances, the application could not have been considered and after the medical certificate to that extent was produced by the petitioner No 1. Khet Singh Rathore (since deceased), the fresh application for getting appointment on compassionate grounds was moved only 7 days before the retirement of the incumbent by his son Devendra Singh Rathore. .16. Under the scheme which came into effect from 13th May, 1988, the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds in the case of permanent disablement could be offered only in terms of Clause 8(c) thereof which unequivocally speaks that on the discharge of a member from the services of the Corporation on account of his permanent total disablement while in service, no benefits shall be paid/made over to that member until that member shall have first irrevocably exercised in writing one of the options mentioned in sub-paras (a) and (b). The petitioner was not entitled to take the benefit of this Clause, as he had not been discharge form the services of the Corporation on account of his permanent disablement while in service but was allowed to superannuate after completing full term of service on attaining the age of superannuation. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in order to get the benefit of this Clause, the petitioner may opt the option in terms of Sub-clause (b) of the Clause 8 of the Scheme to forgo the cash benefits flowing from the permanent disablement of the member of the services under Clause 8, but the petitioner was discharged of his duties on attaining the age of superannuation, hence the petitioners are not entitled to the said benefit. 17. We may notice here that Clause 8, on which reliance has been placed, which reads as under:- 8. Benefits on permanent total disablement: .(a) On the discharge of a member from the service of the Corporation on account of his permanent total disablement while in service, that member will be entitled to benefits at the maximum rate of 40% of his last drawn salary as if that member had superannuated with 32 years of reckonable service, the benefit being payable from the month following the date of his such discharge from the services of the Corporation, for fifteen years certain or the lifetime of that member, whichever is later. If that member dies within the said period of fifteen years certain, the benefit will be payable to the beneficiary till the completion of the said period of fifteen years. .(b) Onthe discharge ofa member who is married, from the services of the Corporation on account of permanent total disablement while in service, that member may as an alternative to Sub-rule (1) above and not later than 180 days of the date of his such discharge from the services of the Corporation opt for employment in the Corporation of eligible dependent spouse/son/daughter of that member fulfilling the required recruitment criteria at the entry level vacancy, such employment to be provided by the Corporation within 3 years from the date of such option being exercised and upon that member consenting to the Corporation making over to the Trustees any payment which under the Corporation policy is payable by reason of the permanent total disablement of that member to receive benefit under the Scheme as if that member had superannuated based upon his actual years of reckonable service such benefit being payable from the month following the date of his such discharge from the services of the .Corporation for fifteen years certain or the lifetime of that member whichever is later. If that member dies within the said period of fifteen years certain, the benefit will be payable to the beneficiary till completion of the said period of fifteen years. .(c) On thedischarge of a member from the services of the Corporation on account of his permanent total disablement while in service, no benefits shall be paid/made over to that member until that member shall have first irrevocably exercised in writing one of the options mentioned in Sub-rules (a) and (b) above PROVIDED HOWEVER that upon the exercise of such option, the benefits shall be paid but without interest/made available to that member as if the option had been exercised on the date of his such discharge from the service of the Corporation PROVIDED HOWEVER that if that member shall not exercise such option in writing within 180 days of the date of his such discharge from the services of the Corporation, that member shall be deemed to have irrevocably opted for the benefit mentioned in Sub-rule (a) above. .(d) For the purposes of this Rule, the provisions of Sub-rule (b) of Rule 6 shall not apply. 18. .(d) For the purposes of this Rule, the provisions of Sub-rule (b) of Rule 6 shall not apply. 18. The Clause 8 quoted above makes deviation from the scheme of giving compassionate appointment in the case of a person who suffered permanent disability while in service and he is discharged from services on account of permanent disablement. Under the Rules which came into force w.e.f. 30.05.1988 in case of an employee suffering permanent disablement is entitled to full benefits from HPCL Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme as if he would have continued in service until the attainment of the age of superannuation. Except for the period of service for which he might have earned his usual retiral benefits and the gratuity on his option he may forgo the additional cash benefits flowing from the superannuation fund for the period in excess of actual services rendered by the employee and claim appointment for eligible dependent who may be his son or daughter, otherwise, fulfilling the eligibility criteria in the entry level vacancy. There was no provision for making appointment in such case in the absence of vacancy by creating supernumerary post, as envisaged in para 24.1 of the Settlement. The option to the benefit of offering appointment to one of the dependents is kept alive for three years only from the date of exercise of the option. The benefit of the superannuation fund is to be given in fifteen annual equal installments. The option either to receive cash benefits or employment for dependent is to be exercised within 45 days from the date of discharge from the services. 19. The exact date on which the scheme was promulgated and brought into effect retrospectively has not been brought on record. The settlement arrived at between the parties was prevalent as on the date is not in dispute. 20. In these circumstances, a question may arise whether a binding settlement which was in force which is ordinarily remain in operation in terms of Section 19 of the Industrial Dispute Act until it is terminated or replaced in accordance with the procedure prescribed, therefore, can be superseded unilaterally framing of the scheme of the extent it offers less beneficial terms and conditions then operating under the Settlement. 21. 21. However, one fact is very clear from the narration of facts that the father of the petitioner No. 2 the original employee of the Corporation had suffered permanent disability about one and half years before the date of his superannuation and while his case was pending consideration for giving compassionate appointment to his son, the surviving petitioner, the petitioner No. 1 (Khet Singh Rathore) retired from the services on completion of full term of employment and was in fact not discharged from his services on the ground of permanent disablement. 22. Technically speaking, the plea raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent may be justified that since the cessation of employment of petitioner No. 1 Khet Singh Rathore (since deceased and deleted) has came into effect on completing full term of service and not on the ground of permanent disablement suffered by him while in service, his case may not fall for seeking employment on compassionate ground. The fact remains that as on the date the said Khet Singh Rathore had made a request for offering compassionate appointment to his dependent son, he has clearly made out a case of permanent disablement that he has been rendered a totally unfit to discharge his duties for the Corporation. Had the respondent acted in time over the application which was pending consideration for giving compassionate appointment to his dependent son, he would have been appointed. 23. Even if the petitioner No. 1 Khet Singh Rathere has retired peacefully on completion of his full term of service, under the operating term of settlement, the respondents were under an obligation to offer employment to one of the dependents of the Khet Singh Rathore. Clause 24.1 envisaged that subject to dependents son/unmarried daughter of a retired workman meeting the job specifications and other things being found equal by the Selection Committee he or she will be given preference in employment in the Corporation against a regular vacancy to be filled as per the recruitment procedure. It is open to the Union to bring to the notice of the Corporation specific cases of dependents whose claim to employment are not accepted. Such cases will be investigated by the Management and the decision of the Management will be communicated to the Union. 24. It is open to the Union to bring to the notice of the Corporation specific cases of dependents whose claim to employment are not accepted. Such cases will be investigated by the Management and the decision of the Management will be communicated to the Union. 24. Assuming the case of the respondent that Khet Singh Rathore has retired on attaining the age of superannuation and cannot be placed in category of an employee whose services has been ceased on account of permanent disablement suffered during the course of employment, under the aforesaid term of settlement, the respondents were under an obligation to consider the case of Devendra Singh for offering him an appointment in preference to other candidates as and when it opens after the retirement of the incumbent Khet Singh Rathore. In fact in response to the representation made by Khet Singh Rathore and his son, it was precisely the stand of the respondent that his case can be considered in terms of the aforesaid Rules and since no provision in this regard has been made in the scheme which became effective w.e.f. 30th May, 1988 his case for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. To that extent, the settlement also cannot be said to be terminated, even taking a most lenient view in favour of the respondent that with the promulgation of the HPCL Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme, the terms of settlement to the extent governed by the said scheme is to be superseded. 25. At this distance of time, while we consider that it may not be appropriate to give appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner on the basis of disablement suffered by his father, a short time before he actually superannuated and Khet Singh Rathore having retired on completion of full term of service, on the admitted facts, the petitioner is entitled for a direction that the respondents were under an obligation to consider his case on preferential basis in employment under the Corporation against a regular vacancy to be filled as per the recruitment procedure, keeping in view the fact that after retirement of the incumbent Khet Singh Rathore regular recruitment must have take place from time to time against the vacancies and the case of the petitioner for appointment may not be ignored for want of specific application in that regard. 26. 26. It may be noticed that in response to the representation submitted by the petitioners it has been specific case of the respondent that the dependents son/unmarried daughter of a retired workman meeting the job specifications and other things being found equal by the Selection Committee he/she will be given preference in employment in the Corporation against a regular vacancy to be filled as per the recruitment procedure. Thus, on an application already having been made in this regard, the respondents were under an obligation to consider the case of the petitioner against recruitment of the regular vacancies as and when exercise in this regard started. The petitioner could not be insisted for submitting fresh application in this regard. 27. It is further noticed that by the ad interim order dated 10.01.1996 passed in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has ordered that the respondent is directed to give suitable employment to the petitioner No. 2 preferably within two months. In pursuance of this direction within the extended period, an employment as Clerk-cum-Typist was given to the petitioner No. 2 Devendra Singh on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,823/-vide order dated June 8, 1996. 28. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has vacated the ad interim order by observing that a litigant cannot be allowed to take benefit of interim order and the ad interim order will not confer any right to continue on the post. 29. While the notices were issued of the special appeal on 17.04.1998, the Division Bench made a direction by way of ad interim order that the services of the appellant shall not be terminated on the basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the said interim order was made absolute. However, it appears that before the order was made and communicated to the respondent, the services of the petitioner No. 2 Devendra Singh were terminated. On 08.07.1998, while hearing the stay petition, the Division Bench directed the respondent not to terminate the services of the petitioner No. 2 and treat the order of termination in abeyance and continue the petitioner in services and to grant regular salary of the post which he was holding at the time of termination of service, till the final disposal of the main appeal. 30. 30. This order having not been complied with by the respondent, the petitioner had filed a D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 160/98 in which notices were issued. However, the initiation of the contempt proceedings were challenged before the Honble Supreme Court. The Honble Supreme Court had stayed the contempt proceedings and also the operation of the order dated 08.07.1998 passed by the Division Bench referred to above and subsequent thereto the appeal against the initiation of the contempt proceedings was allowed and the impugned order dated 08.07.1998 was set aside. However, Honble the Supreme Court made it clear that the said order shall not come in way of the appellant in providing employment to respondent, if it is inclined to do so and if otherwise permissible. This led to dismissal of the contempt petition. 2.31. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances and the Rules, we deem it just and proper to dispose of the special appeal with directions to the respondent to consider giving appointment to the petitioner Devendra Singh on preferential basis against a regular vacancy on everything being found equal. The respondent should consider the case of the petitioner for offering him appointment on preferential basis against available vacancy by giving relaxation in age and eligibility criteria, if so required, within a period of six months.