JUDGMENT Hon’ble Syed Rafat Alam, C.J.—This intra Court appeal arises from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.9.2010 in Writ Petition No. 59321 of 2010, Prabhu Narain Patel and another v. Union of India and others, dismissing the appellants’ writ petition. 2. It appears that Pancham Ram appellant No. 2, was working as a Loader with the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called as Corporation) at its Godown /Depot at Varanasi. His date of birth is 17.5.1948. Initially the Corporation had a scheme for giving compassionate appointment to the dependents of its employees dying in harness which was existing since 1977. In 1996 the Corporation floated a scheme for appointment of next of kin of the departmental workers (only loaders) seeking retirement on medical ground, on their own request. In this regard a circular was issued by the Head Office of the Corporation on 3.7.1996. The circular provided a detailed recruitment procedure and the terms and the conditions under which such appointment could be considered and granted. 3. The conditions required to be fulfilled as enumerated in the circular are as follows : The worker who seeks voluntary retirement on medical ground should apply within the age limit of 55 years for the purpose of availing the benefit of compassionate ground appointment. The retirement on medical ground should be accompanied with medical certificate from Civil Surgeon/District Medical Officer of equal status in the prescribed proforma, which will be subject to verification, by FCI. The benefit of compassionate ground appointment shall be given only in Handling Labour Category that too for male dependent only. The maximum age limit for such compassionate ground appointment should not exceed 30 years. The minimum age of 18 years should not in any case be relaxed. The compassionate appointment shall be made only in deserving cases where there is no earning member in the family of the retired worker. While considering the compassionate ground appointment the financial benefits, which may be available on retirement, should also be taken into account and the competent authority should satisfy that the retirement benefit shall not meet, for running the family. Application for such compassionate grounds appointment shall be made within 3 months from the date of retirement and this period may be relaxed by the competent authority in exceptional and deserving cases. Application for such compassionate grounds appointment shall be made within 3 months from the date of retirement and this period may be relaxed by the competent authority in exceptional and deserving cases. The appointment shall be subject to medical fitness by an authorized Medical Officer confirming that he is fit to handle, carry bags of big size of. The application for compassionate ground appointment should be on the prescribed proforma (enclosed). 4. Pancham Ram, the appellant No. 2 (father of the appellant No. 1), before completing the age of 55 years on 27.2.2003 submitted an application intimating that he was unable to work on account of ill health accompanied by a medical certificate. Thereafter he submitted another application dated 27.3.2003 that his application for retirement on medical ground may be considered. Said request of appellant No. 2 was accepted by the Competent Authority vide office order dated 30.4.2003 and he was retired w.e.f. the afternoon of 30.4.2003. Thereafter i.e. after taking retirement on medical ground the appellant No. 2 vide letter dated 8.5.2003 requested for giving compassionate appointment to his son Prabhu Narain Patel (appellant No. 1). Accordingly the necessary formalities were fulfilled by his son the appellant No. 1 seeking appointment on compassionate basis. 5. Alongwith the appellant No. 1 three others similarly situate candidates were called upon to give their endeavour test before a Committee constituted by the order of the District Manager, Varanasi vide Office Order dated 4/8 September, 2003. According to the appellant No. 1 he passed the physical endeavour test alongwith other candidates. Respondents, however, extended the benefits of compassionate appointment to one Suresh Yadav but not to the appellant No. 1. Thereafter the Assistant General Manager, on behalf of the General Manager, Regional Office, Lucknow of the Corporation issued a letter dated 22.7.2006 to the Area Manager at Varanasi that as there was a ceiling limit of 5% fixed for giving compassionate appointment and that quota having been exhausted, the claim of the appellant No. 1 would be considered as and when vacancies arise. Thereafter certain communications have been filed to show that there were vacancies and requirement of handling labourers as such the Area Manager at Varanasi requested the Regional Office to permit appointment of the appellant No. 1 and one other Triloki Nath Dubey. 6. Thereafter certain communications have been filed to show that there were vacancies and requirement of handling labourers as such the Area Manager at Varanasi requested the Regional Office to permit appointment of the appellant No. 1 and one other Triloki Nath Dubey. 6. General Manager, Regional Office, Lucknow vide office order dated 10.8.2010, after considering the financial benefits received by the retired employee Pancham Ram, appellant No. 2 (father of the appellant No. 1), declined to extend appointment to the appellant No. 1 on compassionate basis. According to the said order, as stated in paragraph 6 thereof, it was mentioned that Pancham Ram received Rs. 5,69,270/- upon retirement and as such the financial status of the appellant No. 2 was considered to be sound for running the family. This ground relates to the Condition No. (vi) of the circular dated 3.7.1996. It was further mentioned in paragraph 11 of the impugned order dated 10.8.2010 of the General Manager that as there was ceiling limit of 5% which was already exhausted and further that such appointment on compassionate basis was to be given only in exceptional cases, and as the appellant did not fall within the exceptional category therefore, the appointment could not be given. 7. The aggrieved appellants therefore preferred Writ Petition No. 59321 of 2010 assailing the validity of the order of the General Manager dated 10.8.2010. The learned single Judge having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the circular as also the case law on the point, dismissed the writ petition vide judgment under appeal dated 28.9.2010 on the following reasons : - (i) That voluntary retirement and request for compassionate appointment was not interlinked with each other and was to be considered on its respective merits. (ii) That under the existing policy, as laid down in the circular dated 3.7.1996, the competent authority had considered the case for compassionate appointment and rejected it by a reasoned order. (iii) That the competent authority had recorded that the financial benefits received by the retired employee was sufficient for sound running of the family. (iv) That the Corporation could not be burdened with surplus labourers. (v) That the claimant for compassionate appointment has no vested or accrued right and as such the claim having been considered with open mind, no relief could be extended to the appellants. (iv) That the Corporation could not be burdened with surplus labourers. (v) That the claimant for compassionate appointment has no vested or accrued right and as such the claim having been considered with open mind, no relief could be extended to the appellants. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge the present intra Court appeal has been preferred. We have heard Sri R.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R.K. Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents. The facts as recorded above, are not disputed. Learned counsels for both the sides have placed reliance upon the Circular dated 3.7.1996. 8. According to the learned counsel for the appellants it is under the said circular that the appellant had a right to be given appointment on compassionate basis as his father had taken retirement on medical grounds under the terms and conditions of the said circular. It is further submitted that the respondents are bound by the terms and the conditions of the said circular and having accepted the medical retirement of the father of the appellant No. 1, appointment to the appellant No. 1, on compassionate basis could not be denied. It is further submitted that the terms and the conditions as provided in the different clauses of the said circular stands fulfilled by the conduct of the appellant No. 2, the father and also the conduct of the appellant No. 1, the dependent seeking employment. 9. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that the scheme as laid down under the circular dated 3.7.1996 could not be dissected. It was one comprehensive scheme. Once the competent authority had accepted the request for retirement on medical grounds and the conditions as provided in the Circular dated 3.7.1996 were fulfilled, there was no justification to reject the claim for compassionate appointment, as both were interlinked to each other. According to the learned counsel for the appellants once the request for retirement on medical grounds was accepted then grant of compassionate appointment was only consequential, provided the conditions required to be fulfilled, regarding age and physical fitness, were fulfilled. In support of his submission learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following decisions— (i) Judgment dated 11.5.2005 of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 579 of 2005 Nizamuddin and another v. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Kanpur and another. In support of his submission learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following decisions— (i) Judgment dated 11.5.2005 of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 579 of 2005 Nizamuddin and another v. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Kanpur and another. (ii) Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 19.9.2005 passed in Special Appeal No. 615 of 2005, Ram Kesh Yadav and Another v. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Azamgarh, U.P. and Another. (iii) Food Corporation of India and Another v. Ram Kesh Yadav and another, JT 2007 (4) SC 1. (iv) Food Corporation of India and Another v. Nizamuddin and another, 2010(2) ESC 280 (SC). (v) The District Manager, Food Corporation of India and another v. Suddu and another, 2010(9) ADJ 525 (DB). (vi) Food Corporation of India v. Bipin Kumar, 2010(8) ADJ 597 (DB). (vii) Judgment dated 8.2.2010 of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1641 of 2010, State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar. (viii) V. Sivamurty v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, JT 2008 (10) SC 215. 10. On the other hand, Sri R.K. Singh learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Circular dated 3.7.1996 clearly provided that the competent authority was vested with the sole discretion of extending or refusing compassionate appointment subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the Circular dated 3.7.1996. In particular reference has been made to the Clause (vi) of the Circular dated 3.7.1996, which reads as follows— “vi) While considering the compassionate ground appointment the financial benefits, which may be available on retirement, should also be taken into account and the competent authority should satisfy that the retirement benefit shall not meet, for running the family.” 11. Sri Singh submits that although clauses (i) to (iv) of the Circular dated 3.7.1996 stands fulfilled but at the same time Clause (vi) required objective assessment by the competent authority with regard to the financial benefits received by the retired employee being sufficient to run the family. The said consideration did not find favour with the competent authority and therefore, the claim has rightly been rejected. The said consideration did not find favour with the competent authority and therefore, the claim has rightly been rejected. It is further submitted by the leaned counsel for the Corporation that the appellant No. 1 had no vested or accrued right to claim appointment except the right of his claim to be considered as per the terms and the conditions of the circular. The claim having been considered and having been rejected on valid grounds, no relief can be granted to the appellants. 12. Sri Singh has further submitted that the Circular dated 3.7.1996 had been scrutinized in detail by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) and Nizamuddin (supra). The Apex Court has clearly laid down that the request for retirement on medical ground and the request for compassionate appointment are not interlinked to each other. Both the requests are to be considered independent of each other on its own merits. 13. Having considered the submissions relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties we now proceed to deal with the same. In our view, the controversy is purely legal. Apparently there is no factual dispute. The question is whether the acceptance of the request for retirement on medical grounds and the request for giving compassionate appointment to the dependent of the employee retired on medical grounds were contingent upon or interlinked to each other to the extent that if the request for retirement on medical ground is accepted then the Corporation was bound to give employment to the dependent. This question has been subject-matter of interpretation/ consideration by various Division Benches of this Court as also in two judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) and Nizamuddin (supra). 14. A Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 11.5.2005 in the intra Court appeal filed by Nizamuddin (supra) and another was of the view that the scheme had to be applied to both i.e. the retired employee and the dependent claiming appointment on reasonable basis. The Corporation could not apply a scheme in favour of one and refuse to apply in favour of other as for the authority of the Corporation the scheme was same for both father and son. It accordingly directed that the appellant Nizamuddin be given appointment within 7 days. The Corporation could not apply a scheme in favour of one and refuse to apply in favour of other as for the authority of the Corporation the scheme was same for both father and son. It accordingly directed that the appellant Nizamuddin be given appointment within 7 days. Following the said Division Bench decision dated 11.5.2005 another Division Bench comprising both of us vide judgment dated 19.9.2005 allowed the appeal of Ram Kesh Yadav and another. The Food Corporation of India carried the matter to the Supreme Court against both the judgments of this Court dated 11.5.2005 and 19.9.2005. 15. The matter relating to Ram Kesh Yadav came up for hearing earlier in point of time and the Apex Court did not approve the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.5.2005 in the case of Nizamuddin. According to the Apex Court in the Circular dated 3.7.1996 there was no right for extending the appointment and it would still remain matter of discretion by the competent authority which had the competence to reject the request if there was no vacancy or if the circumstances of the family of the retired employee did not warrant grant of compassionate appointment. Paragraph 8 of the report in the case of Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) laying down the ratio is reproduced below- “8. As rightly contended by FCI, the issue of voluntary retirement of an employee on medical grounds and the issue of compassionate appointment to a dependent of such retired employee are independent and distinct issues. An application for voluntary retirement has to be made first. Only when it is accepted and the employee is retired, an application for appointment of a dependant on compassionate grounds can be made. Compassionate appointment of a dependant is not an automatic consequence of acceptance of voluntary retirement. Firstly, all the conditions prescribed is the Scheme dated 3.7.1996 should be fulfilled. Even if all conditions as per guidelines are fulfilled, there is no ‘right’ to appointment. It is still a matter of discretion of the competent authority, who may reject the request if there is no vacancy or if the circumstances and conditions of the family of the medically retired worker do not warrant grant of compassionate appointment to a dependant. Even if all conditions as per guidelines are fulfilled, there is no ‘right’ to appointment. It is still a matter of discretion of the competent authority, who may reject the request if there is no vacancy or if the circumstances and conditions of the family of the medically retired worker do not warrant grant of compassionate appointment to a dependant. Therefore, the observation of the High Court in Nizamuddin (supra) that allowing the request of the employee for voluntary retirement on medical grounds and rejecting the application of the dependant for compassionate appointment on the ground of non fulfillment of conditions of scheme would amount to taking inconsistent stands, is clearly erroneous.” 16. However, the Apex Court in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances in the case of Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) wherein request for retirement on medical ground was subject to appointment being extended to his dependent, contained in a single request, the Supreme Court held that the said request could not have been dissected, either the request could be accepted as a whole or could be rejected as a whole. Father of Ram Kesh Yadav had made a specific averment in his request for retirement that he is willing to go for retirement on medical ground if his son is provided employment. The Apex Court after laying down the law as reproduced above dismissed the appeal of the Corporation only because the request submitted by father of Ram Kesh Yadav was one, with a rider that acceptance of retirement on medical ground would be contingent upon giving employment to his son. 17. Further while dealing with the case of Nizamuddin (supra) the Apex Court allowed the appeal of the Food Corporation of India and after setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench restored the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. Even in the judgment of Nizamuddin (supra) the Apex Court discussed the judgment given in the case of Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) and distinguished the same on the ground of exceptional situation where the offer of voluntary retirement was interlinked and conditional upon appointment being offered to the dependent. Thus, the Apex Court while dealing with the interpretation of the Circular dated 3.7.1996 has clearly laid down that the request for retirement on medical ground and the request for appointment on compassionate ground were not interlinked or contingent upon each other. Thus, the Apex Court while dealing with the interpretation of the Circular dated 3.7.1996 has clearly laid down that the request for retirement on medical ground and the request for appointment on compassionate ground were not interlinked or contingent upon each other. It further held that there is no vested or accrued right to seek compassionate appointment even if the request of retirement on medical ground has been accepted. The only right which the dependent has upon acceptance of the request for medical retirement of the employee/worker would be that his claim be considered and no more. 18. The Apex Court in Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) and Nizamuddin (supra) having interpreted the Circular dated 3.7.1996 we need not discuss the rest part of the decisions relied upon by the appellant, which are either Division Benches of this Court or relate to some other organization. 19. In the present case the competent authority as also the learned Single Judge having found from the material on record that after receiving the post retiral benefits the condition of the family of the retired worker was sound enough to maintain and sustain itself rightly rejected the claim of the appellants for appointment on compassionate ground. In view of the exposition of law laid down by the Apex Court and the findings recorded by the competent authority as also the learned Single judge relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed but without costs. ——————