JUDGMENT : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to substitute the petitioner's son Ajesh Kumar against the service of the petitioner in terms of order dated 13.12.2001 purportedly issued on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner was asked to nominate the name of his son for substitution of his employment in the light of the medical report dated 04.01.2001 and 28.03.2001 as contained in Annexures 1 and 3 to the writ application. 3. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are that the petitioner was employed under the respondent B.S.L. Sometime in March, 1995, he had suffered an accident in course of employment sustaining injuries due to which he became unfit for carrying on his duty. The Medical Board had later declared him fit in the month of October, 1995 whereafter he resumed his duties and for the period of his absence, Special Disability Leave was sanctioned to him. Subsequently, the physical condition of the petitioner appears to have deteriorated in as much as, he claims to have suffered a paralytic stroke. Considering his condition, the petitioner by invoking the benefits of the scheme floated by his employer, had prayed for substitution of his son for employment in his place. 4. As it appears, by letter dated 13.12.2001 issued by the Respondent No. 1, the petitioner was asked to nominate the name of his son for substitution of employment. The petitioner did supply the name and accordingly, a panel was prepared in which the name of the petitioner's son was included. However, by the time the name of the petitioner's son could be considered for his absorption in employment, the petitioner had superannuated from service in normal course on 30.04.2002. The petitioner's claim for substitution of his son for employment, was thereby frustrated. Notwithstanding such facts, the petitioner pursued with the respondent authorities for a reconsideration for substitution of his son for employment. 5. The petitioner's prayer was promptly rejected on the ground that substituted employment could not be given since the employee had retired from service in normal course by continuing in employment and had obtained all the benefits of service. 6. Notwithstanding such facts, the petitioner pursued with the respondent authorities for a reconsideration for substitution of his son for employment. 5. The petitioner's prayer was promptly rejected on the ground that substituted employment could not be given since the employee had retired from service in normal course by continuing in employment and had obtained all the benefits of service. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the respondents claim that the petitioner had continued to remain in employment till the date of his retirement but he was not paid any salary for the period 20.12.2000 to 30.04.2002. Learned counsel however acknowledges that after his superannuation, the petitioner was paid his retiral benefits including pension and gratuity and all other benefits on the basis of his total length of service, but insists that the salary for the aforementioned period has not been paid to him. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner's claim for substitution of his son's name in his place is no more tenable in view of the fact that the petitioner had retired from service in normal course before the name of the petitioner's son for employment could be considered. Learned counsel explains further that the scheme for substituted employment cannot be treated equal to any scheme for compassionate appointment. .Learned counsel submits that as regards the petitioner's claim for salary for the aforementioned period, the matter can be verified from the records and if the petitioner's claim is genuine and bonafide, then the same shall be considered and shall be paid to him as per the company's Rules. 8. In the light of above submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner's prayer for a direction upon the respondents to grant substituted employment to the petitioner's son does not appear to be tenable. As regards his claim for payment of salary for the period 20.12.2000 to 30.04.2002, the concerned authorities of the respondents shall consider the same, after verifying from the records and if it is found that the petitioner is genuinely entitled for the salary for the aforesaid period, then an appropriate decision shall be taken by the concerned authorities of the respondents accordingly and any amount to which the petitioner is found legally entitled, shall be paid to him within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondents.