JUDGMENT A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the judgment dated 10-7-2014 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Amravati by which the complaint filed by him under provisions of Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 has been dismissed. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed with the respondent as a Driver. On 11-10-2008 while discharging duty, he suffered a paralytic attack due to which he became medically unfit. According to him, after due medical examination by the Handicap Board it was found that he has suffered 45% disability. It is the further case of the petitioner that in terms of the policy of the respondent, he made an application on 7-12-2009 seeking employment for his son on the ground that the petitioner was found to be disabled. As the request made by the petitioner was not accepted, he filed aforesaid complaint praying that he be paid salary for the period from 11-10-2008 till appointment of his son and also to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to his son. 3. The respondent filed its written statement and stated that the petitioner's son was not eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground. It was stated that the petitioner was permitted to continue in service till his superannuation and hence, the concept of compassionate appointment was not attracted. 4. The petitioner examined his son while the respondent examined their personnel officer. The Industrial Court after due consideration of the material on record found that the petitioner had not been issued any certificate to show that he was permanently unfit for discharging duty. It further held that the various circulars relied by the petitioner were not applicable to his case. The complaint therefore, was dismissed. 5. Shri B.M. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner suffered a paralytic attack on 11-10-2008 he had become permanently disabled. In terms of circular dated 10-9-1975 his son was entitled to be granted an appointment. He submitted that this policy was subsequently accepted by the Joint Committee and hence, it was binding on the respondent. Shri B.M. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner suffered a paralytic attack on 11-10-2008 he had become permanently disabled. In terms of circular dated 10-9-1975 his son was entitled to be granted an appointment. He submitted that this policy was subsequently accepted by the Joint Committee and hence, it was binding on the respondent. He submitted that the circular dated 10-9-1975 was binding on the respondent and no change could be made without following the prescribed procedure. He further submitted that the subsequent circular especially the circular dated 24-8-2006 were not applicable to his case and the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint. He placed reliance on the decision in AIR 1980 SC 2181 , Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur and others. He also submitted that the document dated 13-4-2011 itself indicated that the petitioner was permanently disabled and the same was issued by the Handicap Board. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner's son was entitled for appointment. He also referred to the provisions of section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 to urge that the petitioner was also entitled to receive entire salary till the age of superannuation. 6. Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order. According to him, the petitioner's son was not entitled for compassionate appointment as the petitioner had retired from service on superannuation. He submitted that in terms of circular dated 24-8-2006 it is only if an employee expired in harness after 9-6-2006 that appointment on compassionate basis could be made. He submitted that the petitioner was on medical leave that was duly granted and hence, there was no case of making any compassionate appointment. He further submitted that there was nothing on record to indicate that petitioner had not received his dues after being medically unfit. He relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) 2012(4) Mh.L.J. 587, Ashok Kumar v. District Magistrate, Basti and another, (ii) (2012) 11 SCC 307 , Union of India and another v. Shashank Goswami and another, (iii) AIR 2013 SC 3365 , MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh. He also placed reliance on the decision of learned Single Judge in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 429 , Nusrat Kamal Ansari and another v. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Nagpur. 7. He also placed reliance on the decision of learned Single Judge in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 429 , Nusrat Kamal Ansari and another v. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Nagpur. 7. I have considered the respective submissions. The fact that the petitioner suffered a paralytic attack after which he was permanently disabled to the extent of 45% is clear from the certificate dated 13-4-2011. It is further clear that the petitioner was on medical leave after 11-10-2008 and retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31-3-2010. The question therefore, is regarding entitlement to appointment of the petitioner's son on compassionate grounds as sought to be urged by the petitioner. 8. According to the petitioner, in terms of circular dated 10-9-1975 as the petitioner was declared unfit his son was entitled for appointment by the respondent. It is the further case that this circular was subsequently acted upon and formed part of the settlement between the parties. On the other hand, according to the respondent, the case of the petitioner that his son was entitled for compassionate appointment cannot be considered in view of circular dated 24-8-2006. In this regard it is necessary first to refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of compassionate appointment. It has been held in MGB Gramin Bank and Union of India (supra) that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right but has to be made in accordance with the regulations and administrative instructions. Similarly, a request in that regard has to be considered on the basis of scheme that is in existence on the date when the cause of action has accrued. In Ashok Kumar (supra), it has been held that if an employee has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation there is no question of any compassionate appointment thereafter. 9. The circular dated 24-8-2006 is in terms of various decisions of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove. It has been directed that only in case of death of an employee after 9-6-2006 while in service that the benefit of compassionate appointment can be considered. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner retired after attaining the age of superannuation. He was on medical leave till his superannuation. Hence, there is no occasion for considering the case for appointment for his son on compassionate basis. 10. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner retired after attaining the age of superannuation. He was on medical leave till his superannuation. Hence, there is no occasion for considering the case for appointment for his son on compassionate basis. 10. As regards the Circular dated 10-9-1975 the same merely records that it is an ad hoc decision which has been taken to provide employment in case an employee is declared unfit by the Competent Authority. It is not the case pleaded that said Circular had subsequently became part of any settlement. There is no material evidence on record to indicate the same. Such not being the pleading in the complaint, the present respondent therefore, has not responded to the aforesaid before the Industrial Court. The submission in that regard therefore, cannot be accepted. Moreover, the cause to seek any relief arose only on 11-10-2008 and therefore, the cause is governed by the circular dated 24-8-2006. The decision relied in the case of Life Insurance Corporation (supra) has no application to the present facts. 11. As regards the submission that the petitioner was entitled to entire salary and benefit of provisions of section 47 of the Act of 1995, there are again no pleadings that the petitioner was discriminated against so as to result in violation of aforesaid provisions. On the contrary, the reply indicates that the petitioner was on medical leave till his superannuation. There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner did not receive his entire salary till his superannuation so as to be entitled to relief under section 47of the Act of 1995. In view of aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that the Industrial Court while rejecting the complaint committed any jurisdictional error. All relevant factors have been considered after which the complaint has been dismissed. Hence, there is no reason to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.