VINEET SARAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14. 6. 2002 passed by Senior Regional manager, Food Corporation of India, Lucknow, Respondent No. 2, whereby the application of petitioner No. 2 Jai Ram for appointment of his son Shobh Nath, Petitioner No. 1, has been rejected. The petitioners have thus prayed for quashing of the aforesaid order dated 14. 6. 2002 and also for a direction to the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lucknow, respondent No. 2, to appoint the Petitioner No. 1 on the post of Handling Labour (Loader) in accordance with the terms of the Circular dated 3. 7. 1996 issued by the Food Corporation of india. ( 2 ) HAVING heard Sri R. C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri M. P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and on careful perusal of the record and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. ( 3 ) THE brief facts relevant for the decision of this case are that Petitioner No. 2 Jai Ram was working as Handling Labour (Loader) with Food Corporation of India. On 17. 3. 1998, before attaining the age of 55 years, he filed an application for appointment of his son Shobh Nath, petitioner No. 1, in his place on the basis of the Circular dated 3. 7. 1996 issued by the respondent-Corporation. The right leg of the Petitioner No. 2 had been fractured and was shortened by 4 cm. and thus he was unable to carry on the work of loading and unloading. The circular dated 3. 7. 1996 provides for benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds, only to the employees in handling and labour category, to a family member of the worker who seeks voluntary retirement on medical ground before attaining the age of 55 years. Accordingly, on 17. 3. 1998 the Petitioner No. 2 filed an application for appointment of his son in his place, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Corporation. Along with the said application a medical certificate dated 1. 2. 1998 issued by the Superintendent of Upgraded Govt. Hospital, Shivpur, Varanasi was also enclosed. 3. 1998 the Petitioner No. 2 filed an application for appointment of his son in his place, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Corporation. Along with the said application a medical certificate dated 1. 2. 1998 issued by the Superintendent of Upgraded Govt. Hospital, Shivpur, Varanasi was also enclosed. Undisputedly on the basis of the said medical certificate the petitioner was allowed to voluntarily retire on medical grounds before attaining the age of 55 years. On 27. 3. 1998 the Assistant manager of the Food Corporation of India had forwarded the application of the Petitioner No. 2 to the District Manager for consideration. On 22. 1. 2000 the District Manager forwarded the details wherein it had been stated that the medical fitness certificate of the petitioner was enclosed and the Petitioner No. 1, who is the son of Petitioner No. 2, was found fit in the performance test report of the Committee for appointment on the post of handling labour. It was stated therein that an affidavit of no objection from all major family members of Petitioner No. 2 had also been procured. It was admitted that the date of receipt of the application was 17. 3. 1998. While stating that there was no demerit reported for appointment being given to the Petitioner no. 1, the District Manager forwarded the application of the petitioner with the comment that vacancy on the said post existed against the post of Petitioner No. 2, Jai Ram. ( 4 ) BY the impugned order dated 14. 6. 2002, Respondent No. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioner only on the ground that the said Jai Ram, ex-handling labour had obtained medical unfitness certificate on 10. 3. 2000 from the Chief Medical Officer/medical Superintendent of government Upgraded Hospital, Varanasi by which time he had crossed the age limit of 55 years by 1 year and 10 months and hence the application for appointment of his son Shobh Nath on compassionate grounds could not be considered. ( 5 ) THE Petitioner No. 2 was born on 10. 5. 1943. He attained the age of 55 years on 10. 5. 1998. In the impugned order also it is mentioned that the said Jai Ram had applied for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds on 17. 3. ( 5 ) THE Petitioner No. 2 was born on 10. 5. 1943. He attained the age of 55 years on 10. 5. 1998. In the impugned order also it is mentioned that the said Jai Ram had applied for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds on 17. 3. 1998, which was well before he attained the age of 55 years. Alongwith the said application the medical unfitness certificate was also enclosed, which was dated 1. 2. 1998. The said certificate clearly shows that due to fracture there was shortening of his right leg by 4 cm. and he was unable to do the work of handling labour. Admittedly on the basis of the same, the petitioner has already been retired, and as such the respondents cannot now turn around and claim that the said certificate was not valid for granting appointment on compassionate grounds, although it was found to be valid for retiring him on medical grounds. The delay in forwarding and deciding the application of Petitioner No. 2 for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds cannot be attributed to the petitioner. When the initial application had been filed on 17. 3. 1998, he was well under 55 years of age and the same could not have been rejected merely on technical grounds. If any second medical certificate had been obtained on 10. 3. 2000, it cannot be said that the petitioner would not be given the benefit of the circular dated 3. 7. 1996 merely because the said certificate dated 10. 3. 2000 had been obtained 1 years 10 months after the Petitioner No. 2 had crossed the age limit of 55 years, when the earlier medical certificate dated 1. 2. 1998 was already on record and had also been acted upon. Once the application of the Petitioner No. 2 had already been filed and accepted before he attained the age of 55 years, on the basis of which Petitioner No. 2 had also been retired, the respondents cannot deny the petitioners the benefit of their own circular dated 3. 7. 1996, which provides for appointment on compassionate grounds to a family member of the handling labour who retires voluntarily on medical grounds before attaining the age of 55 years. 7. 1996, which provides for appointment on compassionate grounds to a family member of the handling labour who retires voluntarily on medical grounds before attaining the age of 55 years. ( 6 ) SRI N. P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that since there is no vacancy on the post of handling labour with the respondent-Corporation, thus a direction to appoint the Petitioner No. 1 on such post on compassionate grounds could not be granted. In support of his contention he has place reliance on two decisions of the Apex Court rendered in hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai, AIR 1997 SC 123 and Himachal road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, AIR 1996 SC 2226 . In my view the ratio of the said decisions would not apply to the facts of the present case as the respondents have themselves, while forwarding the application of the petitioner, accepted that the vacancy existed on the post on which the Petitioner No. 2 Jai Ram was working. As such in the present case it cannot be said that there was no vacancy. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, AIR 1994 SC 2148 , which, in my opinion, also does not help the respondents. In the said case the appointment on compassionate grounds was denied on the ground that one member of the deceased family was gainfully employed whereas in the present case there is no such averment that any member of the family of the petitioners was gainfully employed nor is there any such condition in the Circular dated 3. 7. 1996. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of this Court, in Writ petition No. 43714 of 2001, Raj Nath Yadav and Anr. v. Senior Regional Officer, Food corporation of India and Anr. , decided on 2. 8. 2002, wherein, in a similar situation, the corporation was directed to give appointment, which order has also been affirmed in Special appeal No. 1029 of 2002. ( 8 ) THUS, in my view, the reason for refusing to give appointment to the petitioner, as stated in the impugned order dated 14. 6. 2002 passed by Respondent No. 2 is not tenable. ( 8 ) THUS, in my view, the reason for refusing to give appointment to the petitioner, as stated in the impugned order dated 14. 6. 2002 passed by Respondent No. 2 is not tenable. The application of the Petitioner No. 2 had been filed within time as he had not attained the age of 55 years on 17. 3. 1998 when he first applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds and as such the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground of it being filed beyond the age of 55 years is liable to be quashed. The Petitioner No. 1 is entitled to the benefit of the circular dated 3. 7. 1996 for appointment as handling labour on compassionate grounds in place of his father, petitioner No. 2. As such this writ petition deserves to be allowed. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned order dated 14. 6. 2002 passed by Respondent No. 2 is quashed and the respondents are directed to give appointment to Petitioner No. 1 Shobh Nath, son of Jai Ram as Loader, forthwith without any delay. No order as to costs. . .