Judgment Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, Learned Advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent, in each petition. On the facts and in the circumstances of each case, and with the consent of the Learned Advocates for the respective parties, these petitions are being heard and finally decided today. As similar questions of fact and law arise in these petitions, they are being decided together by this Judgment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the above petitions are narrated herein-below: 2.1 The father of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 9176 of 2010 had joined the service of the Respondent-Corporation (Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, “ONGC” for short) on 28-2-1974 on the post of Khalasi (Grade-I). He died in harness on 30-5-1984, in a fire accident which occurred at ONGC’s Well, Sanand-65, along with three other persons. The date of birth of the petitioner being 1-6-1976, he was aged about 8 years when his father expired. According to the petitioner, as per the policy of the respondent, he was entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds upon his attaining majority, in the year 1994. However, instead of giving appointment to the petitioner on regular basis, the respondent-Corporation appointed him on the post of Junior Mali on term basis, for a period of four years, vide appointment order dated 21-12-2000. The petitioner joined duty on 29-12-2000. Thereafter, upon completion of the four years’ term the services of the petitioner were terminated, with effect from 31-12-2004. After a break of about 25 days, the petitioner was re-engaged with effect from 25-1-2005, once again on a term basis, and on a fixed salary. The petitioner is still working with the respondent-Corporation, as above. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of repeated representations requesting the respondent-Corporation to appoint him on regular basis on compassionate grounds, the respondent has not done so. 2.2 The husband of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 13990 of 2010 had joined service in the Respondent- Corporation on 7-9-1981, on the post of Helper (Grade-II). He expired in harness on 4-12-1991. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 1991 itself, but the respondent-Corporation did not give appointment to her but instead offered a lump-sum compensation, which was not accepted by the petitioner. He expired in harness on 4-12-1991. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 1991 itself, but the respondent-Corporation did not give appointment to her but instead offered a lump-sum compensation, which was not accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, which was ultimately withdrawn. The respondent-Corporation called the petitioner for interview on 19-5-2000, for appointment to the post of Junior Hospital Attendant/Dresser, on regular basis. However, instead of giving appointment on regular basis to the petitioner, she was appointed as Junior Hospital Attendant/Dresser on term basis, for a period of four years, vide appointment order dated 20-11-2000. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent-Corporation, as such, on 24-11-2000. Upon completion of the four years’ term the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 31-12-2004. After a break of about 25 days, the petitioner was re-engaged as Field Worker-Para Medical, with effect from 24-1-2005. The petitioner is still continuing to work with the respondent-Corporation. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of offering her appointment on regular basis on compassionate grounds as per the policy of the respondent-Corporation, she has been appointed on term basis. 2.3 The father of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 13991 of 2010 had joined the service of the respondent-Corporation on 15-3-1965 on the post of Boiler Attendant. He expired while in harness on 6-7-1991. The mother of the petitioner made an application for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds, as per the policy of the respondent-Corporation, on 7-10-1991. According to the petitioner, though he was eligible for appointment in the year 1991, no appointment was given to him at that point of time. However, the petitioner was called for interview by the respondent-authority on 12-7-1994 for the post of Khalasi (Grade-III) and later, on 16-7-1999, for the post of Security Guard. However, the petitioner was not given appointment even at that point of time. Thereafter, by issuing interview call letter dated 21-8-2000, the respondent-Corporation called the petitioner for interview, for appointment on the post of Junior Attendant on regular basis. Pursuance thereto, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Attendant on term basis for a period of four years, vide appointment order dated 21-12-2000. The petitioner is still working on term basis. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given regular appointment. 3. Pursuance thereto, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Attendant on term basis for a period of four years, vide appointment order dated 21-12-2000. The petitioner is still working on term basis. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given regular appointment. 3. Mr.Paresh Upadhyaya, Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are eligible for regular appointment on compassionate grounds, as per the policy of the respondent-Corporation. However, instead of giving them regular appointment, they are being given appointment on term basis, for reasons best known to the respondent-Corporation, in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner; therefore, the respondent-Corporation may be directed to appoint the petitioners regularly. 4. An affidavit-in-reply dated 20-9-2010 has been filed by the respondent-Corporation in Special Civil Application No. 9176 of 2010. It is stated therein that the prayer of the petitioner in that case was considered by the respondent-Corporation. However, regular appointment could not be given in view of the orders passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6607 of 2005, and subsequent orders. It is stated that by order dated 17-9-2009, the Apex Court rejected the application of the respondent-Corporation by holding that the Respondent-Corporation was first required to engage 137 persons qua whom orders had been passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6607 of 2005, and that there was no question of the respondent-Corporation making any appointment till the cases of those persons were considered. It is further averred that in view of the above order of the Supreme Court, the respondent-Corporation is estopped from making any regular appointment qua the petitioners. 5. Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, Learned Advocate for the respondent-Corporation had opposed the prayers made in the petitions by reiterating the stand taken in the affidavit-in-reply. 6. I have heard the Learned Advocates for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petitions and other documents on record. In I.A.No.11 and 12 of 2009 in Civil Appeal No. 6607 of 2005, the Supreme Court has passed order dated 17-9-2009. The relevant portion thereof is extracted herein-below: “19. At this juncture, we may also refer to the submission which had been made on behalf of one of the intervenors from the compassionate appointment category that there were large number of vacancies available in which all could be accommodated. The relevant portion thereof is extracted herein-below: “19. At this juncture, we may also refer to the submission which had been made on behalf of one of the intervenors from the compassionate appointment category that there were large number of vacancies available in which all could be accommodated. Mr.Ramachandran has denied such submission and in the affidavit filed with regard to the copy of the Minutes of the 71 meeting of the Joint Committee, it has been pointed out that the number of vacancies indicated represented vacancies in various departments and particularly of a technical nature and did not necessarily include the vacancies against which appointments were to be made as far as the concerned workmen and the compassionate appointees were concerned. 20. From the order dated 20.11.2006 it was clearly the intention of this Court that till such time as the 153 workmen were not absorbed against regular vacancies in the concerned category, no recruitment could be made by the applicant. Similar provision was also made with regard to the workmen who were employed on seasonal basis. 21. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the O.N.G.C. and the Mazdoor Sangh, we are not inclined to grant the prayer made on behalf of the O.N.G.C. for leave to appoint candidates from the compassionate category group before all the workmen who were identified after the Award of the Tribunal to be eligible for appointment, are absorbed, as that would not only go against the order passed by us on 20 November, 2006, but would also amount to modifying the same. 22. While rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the ONGC, we, however, make it clear that such rejection would not prevent the ONGC from offering the compensation package either to those workmen from amongst the 137 workmen, who are yet to be absorbed or those waiting for appointment from the compassionate appointment category. If such package is accepted by any of those candidates, both the ONGC as well as such candidate will be at liberty to act on the basis of such acceptance and shall not be fettered in any way by the directions given either by the Tribunal or this Court on 29th November, 2006.” 7. If such package is accepted by any of those candidates, both the ONGC as well as such candidate will be at liberty to act on the basis of such acceptance and shall not be fettered in any way by the directions given either by the Tribunal or this Court on 29th November, 2006.” 7. In view of the clear directions given by the Supreme Court while rejecting the prayer made by the respondent-Corporation for permission to offer appointments on compassionate grounds on regular basis, there is no illegality or infirmity in the stand taken by the respondent-Corporation. The petitioners are employed with the respondent-Corporation on term basis, and in view of the above mentioned orders of the Apex Court, the petitioners cannot insist that they be appointed on regular basis, as that would amount to a violation of the said order. 8. In the above facts and circumstances, the prayers made by the petitioners cannot be accepted. The petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged, in each petition. There shall be no orders as to costs. P P P P P