JUDGMENT Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. The decision of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 934 of 2003 has been impugned in the present petition. By its order dated 17th April, 2008, the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the petition are as follows: The petitioner’s father worked as a Class-IV staff (G.D.A.) in Dr. B. C. Roy Chest Sanatorium from 14th July, 1967. He was declared medically unfit for duty by the Medical Board after examining him. After the petitioner’s father was declared incapacitated for service with effect from 16th October, 2000, the petitioner and his father submitted applications in November, 2000 praying that the petitioner should be appointed on compassionate grounds in the place of his father. As the authorities did not pay any heed to his request, the petitioner sought the intervention of the Chief Minister, West Bengal, by a letter dated 9th July, 2001. Thereafter on 4th July, 2002 the Director of Health Services rejected the petitioner’s prayer for compassionate appointment. 3. An application was filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act being O.A. No. 1294 of 2002 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The order of the Director of Health Services was set aside by the Tribunal by its order dated 13th September, 2002. The Tribunal directed the authorities to pass a speaking order. 4. The Director of Health Services, West Bengal, considered the petitioner’s case again and rejected it once more. By an order dated 25th April, 2003 the Director of Health Services held that since the petitioner’s father was declared permanently disabled after rendering service for 33 years 3 months 7 days, he was entitled to full pensionary benefits. Therefore, under the existing Rules the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. 5. The petitioner then approached the Tribunal once again by preferring O.A. No. 934 of 2003. The Tribunal rejected that application by confirming the speaking order passed by the Director of Health Services, West Bengal. 6. Mr. Md. Yamin Ali, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner’s case was considered on the basis of the circular issued by the Labour Department on 3rd August, 1993 which partially modified the earlier circulars of 19th June, 1978 and 17th October, 1977. 6. Mr. Md. Yamin Ali, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner’s case was considered on the basis of the circular issued by the Labour Department on 3rd August, 1993 which partially modified the earlier circulars of 19th June, 1978 and 17th October, 1977. This circular, according to the learned Counsel, does not in any way create an impediment in the way of the petitioner availing the right to compassionate appointment. According to him, the pensionary benefits which have been granted to the employee on his accepting voluntary retirement because he was declared incapacitated for work are less than the amount which he would have drawn had he retired at his normal age of superannuation. He submitted that the family of the petitioner was in a dire financial straits and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was essential. 7. Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury, the learned Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand supported the order passed by the Director of Health Services which has been confirmed by the Tribunal by submitting that since the employee concerned was entitled to full pensionary benefits, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. The learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 1305 . 8. The circular of 3rd August, 1993 issued by the State Government provides that the benefit of the offer of employment on compassionate grounds can be availed by the son/daughter/near relative of an employee retiring prematurely because he was disabled permanently or otherwise incapacitated, rendering him unfit to continue in service only if: “(a) such employee fulfils all the three following conditions: (i) On premature retirement he/she would not be entitled to the full pensionary benefits to which he/she would have been entitled if he/she had retired at his/her normal age of superannuation: (ii) He/she has fully exhausted all kinds of leave with pay including commuted leave on medical grounds; and (iii) He/she has two years of service or more left to reach the age of superannuation: and (b) the financial condition of the family is so acute as to make the appointment essential consequent upon the fall in income due to the voluntary retirement. 2. … … … 3. … … … 4. … … … 5. 2. … … … 3. … … … 4. … … … 5. Special cases where relaxation of any or all the aforesaid conditions is considered imperative should be referred by the Administrative Department concerned to the Labour Department for examination. The labour Department will forward the case with its views to the Chief Minister for a decision.” 9. The question which has been raised before us is whether the term “full pensionary benefits” means the actual amount of pension receivable by an employee on retirement at the age of superannuation. The concept of full pensionary benefits has been considered by the Supreme court in Dalip Singh’s case (supra) where it is held that where an employee is retired compulsorily under the relevant Rules and is paid full pension, the order of retirement cannot be considered as a punishment. 10. There can be no dispute that the employee having completed more than 33 years of service qualified for being paid full pension. However, the actual amount of pension received by him would have been more had he retired on attaining the age of 60 years. This is because at the time of retirement his pay-scale was Rs.2850-65-70-4005-75-4680 and his basic pay was Rs.4,080. The employee received pension of an amount of Rs.3,058 + Dearness Allowance of Rs.918. Had the employee continued in service up to 31st August, 2007 which was the date of his superannuation, he would have been entitled to a higher amount as the yearly increment would have been added to his basic pay of Rs.4,080 on which basis his pension has been calculated and paid to him. He has lost yearly increments for seven years. Moreover, the pension received would have been Rs.3,438 that is inclusive of basic pension of Rs.2302 + Medical Allowance of Rs.100 + Dearness Allowance of Rs.1036. Thus, the petitioner’s father received Rs.380/- less each month than what he would have received had he rendered service up to the age of superannuation. 11. Similarly, the gratuity received by him is also less by Rs.17,275/-. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that on premature retirement the employee received the pensionary benefits which he would have been entitled had he retired at his normal age of superannuation. The decisions of the Director of Heath Services and the Tribunal are therefore incorrect. What is required to be noticed is the criteria to be fulfilled. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that on premature retirement the employee received the pensionary benefits which he would have been entitled had he retired at his normal age of superannuation. The decisions of the Director of Heath Services and the Tribunal are therefore incorrect. What is required to be noticed is the criteria to be fulfilled. It is obvious in the present case that the rate of pensionary benefits to which the petitioner’s father was entitled at the age of superannuation would have been more than the amount received by him on being declared medically incapacitated for work. 12. The impugned order is therefore set aside. The respondents will reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the circular dated 3rd August, 1993 as interpreted by us and will also assess the financial condition of the family of the petitioner. The respondents will also determine whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief under Clause 5 of the aforesaid circular. This exercise must be completed within a period of three months from today. 13. The petition is disposed of accordingly.