JUDGMENT V.K.Sharma, Judge Consequent upon the death of father of the petitioner late Shri Amar Nath, who was in the employment of the respondent-Corporation as Deputy Ranger, on 28.1.2001, the petitioner applied for grant of employment on compassionate grounds vide application dated 24.5.2001, Annexure P-3. At that time, he was a matriculate and has since improved his qualification upto 10+2. 2. It is seen from the record that at one point of time the petitioner was offered appointment as Cleaner vide letter dated 7.3.2005, Annexure P-5, which he did not accept and instead prayed for appointment against a Class-III post in the respondent-Corporation or in the alternative as Forest Guard/Clerk, in the Forest Department. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner was recommended by the respondent-Corporation to the State Government. However, the same along with other such cases for grant of employment on compassionate grounds was sent back by the State Government to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation vide letter dated 5.3.2008, Annexure R-2, with the following observations:- “the matter has been considered and it has been decided by the Government that the Managing Director should get the issue decided by his Board of Directors. As such, you are requested to put up all those cases of compassionate appointments before Board of Directors and decide the same at your own level” 3. Against the above backdrop, the case of the petitioner for grant of employment on compassionate grounds has been rejected by the respondent-Corporation vide communication dated 25.11.2008, Annexure P-16, on the following grounds:- “After consideration of the Memo the Board decided that employment on compassionate grounds shall be considered only on those cases where the death of the employee can be directly attributed to accident, while actively performing the work of the corporation and where negligence is ruled out. All the existing pending cases be reviewed accordingly, including cases whose sanction has already been conveyed by the Govt. but not implemented so far.” 4. All the existing pending cases be reviewed accordingly, including cases whose sanction has already been conveyed by the Govt. but not implemented so far.” 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Cleaner, if otherwise eligible, against an existing vacancy, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner and in case no such vacancy is available at present, against the first available vacancy that shall occur in future, in accordance with law. 5. The petition as also pending CMPs, if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.