JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 28.05.2008 bearing No. 835 issued by the Respondent No. 3, whereby the request of the petitioner for appointment of his wife, has been rejected. Further prayer is for alternative duty with pay protection, emoluments and future promotion from the date of discharge under Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The petitioner joined the service on 10.01.1977 on the post of Assistant Loco Driver, having employee number 365404 and discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. During this period, the petitioner was promoted and reached to scale9 before 21.11.1998 i.e. the date of incident. When the petitioner was on duty in B-shift on 21.11.1998, he met with an accident at 20:45 hrs. with a running locomotive on a railway track as a result of which both the legs of the petitioner came between the rails and locomotive, crushing both of his legs and amputating above the knee. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to Bokaro General Hospital for treatment on same day. On 19.04.1999 he was discharged after skin grafting, debridement and other medical treatments. On 28.10.1999, a certificate was issued by the Director (Medical & Health Service), wherein cause of accident has been given apart from other necessary details. It is stated that on 27.01.2000, the petitioner represented before Dy. CPM (Works) Traffic, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro for taking necessary steps in order to produce him before the Medical Board for change of his job and for artificial limbs as advised by the doctors. Thereafter, the National Institute for the Orthopedically Handicapped, Calcutta examined the case of the petitioner and has given its report on 26.07.2000 vide ACC No. 2007063 stating therein that reconstructive surgery is essential and it will be better if on both legs stumps be fitted. It is the case of the petitioner that vide letter No. PERS/P/48/T&RM/03/01/238/2000482 dated 06.09.2000, separation order was issued being separation Order No. 9125, whereby the petitioner was discharged on medical ground from the services of the company with immediate effect, after giving three months pay in lieu of notice amounting to Rs. 27,427.50/-. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that vide letter No. PERS/P/48/T&RM/03/01/238/2000482 dated 06.09.2000, separation order was issued being separation Order No. 9125, whereby the petitioner was discharged on medical ground from the services of the company with immediate effect, after giving three months pay in lieu of notice amounting to Rs. 27,427.50/-. 4. On 21.09.2000, Administration of Bokaro Steel Plant gave notice to the petitioner to vacate the quarter on or before 05.10.2000 otherwise necessary steps will be taken to get the quarter vacated. As having no option to the petitioner, he vacated the quarter on 17.11.2000 and handed over the same to the Town Administration Department and was thus rendered roof less, along with his family members. On 15.01.2001, membership order was passed wherein the application of the petitioner dated 23.09.2000 for joining Employee Family Benefit Scheme was accepted and after depositing 4,82,677.36/- the petitioner got eligible for monthly payment subject to statutory deduction like the Income Tax etc. at source. The other benefits due to him were also not paid. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to meet the officials of the B.S.L several times but all his efforts went in vain. On 03.05.2005, the petitioner represented before Managing Director and requested for considering his case but his request was rejected by the Managing Director. On 01.06.2005 and again on 31.03.2008, the petitioner represented before Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, B.S. City, for employment of his wife on compassionate ground in place of him. Thereafter, on 28.05.2008, the respondent-authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment of his wife on compassionate ground. Hence, this writ application has been filed. 5. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents authorities have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner on 28.05.2005, which amounts to victimizing the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that action of respondents is violative of provision of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act. 1995. It is submitted that the action of the respondents is also violative of the provisions of Clause 3.4.5 of the Memorandum of Agreement of National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry. The action of the respondents is not tenable since Employee Family Benefit Scheme does not make the provision of Clause 3.4.5 redundant since the same is a beneficial legislation. It is submitted that the action of the respondents is also violative of the provisions of Clause 3.4.5 of the Memorandum of Agreement of National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry. The action of the respondents is not tenable since Employee Family Benefit Scheme does not make the provision of Clause 3.4.5 redundant since the same is a beneficial legislation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similarly situated person, who met an accident and suffered 75 % disability, was kept on role for 67 years and was paid basic+D.A and finally one of his dependent got compassionate employment, on the ground of parity the dependent of the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. 6. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, in view of the fact that the petitioner had suffered 100% disability and the nature was “total permanent disablement” as per the medical report dated 20.10.1999 and as such he was unfit for the job. The petitioner was accordingly, paid the requisite compensation amount of Rs. 1,99,548/-. Learned counsel further argued that the report of the Medical Disability Board including the report of the Appellate Medical Board, the petitioner was rightly discharged from the services of the company on medical ground under Order 25 of the Standing Orders of the Company, which governed the case of the petitioner at the relevant time. The petitioner was also paid three months wages basic + D.A. in lieu of the notice of termination of employment and also paid other benefits admissible on account of separation on medical ground. 7. Learned counsel also contends that the petitioner was discharged from the services on the basis of medical ground and the question of victimization is misconceived. The case of the petitioner is not covered under Section 47 of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Right & Full Participation) 1995. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards Paragraph 17 of the Counter affidavit and submits that it is a wrong assertion that the petitioner was discriminated vis-a-vis the case of the petitioner and the case of Shri R.K. Jha of instrumentation department of BSL as alleged in Para24 under reply. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards Paragraph 17 of the Counter affidavit and submits that it is a wrong assertion that the petitioner was discriminated vis-a-vis the case of the petitioner and the case of Shri R.K. Jha of instrumentation department of BSL as alleged in Para24 under reply. It is stated that there is difference between the case of Sri R.K. Jha, who on suffering injury and on being medically declared unfit did not opt for employee family benefit scheme and accordingly got appointment of his son in lieu of the same and thus it is wrong to state that Mr. Jha got payment of Basic + D.A. as per Employee Family Benefit Schemes and as such there was no question of discrimination. 8. Supplementary Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents on 31.08.2016 in which it has been mentioned in Paragraph No. 3 taking a reference of paragraph 14 to the counter affidavit filed on 13.01.2009 that the petitioner opted for Employee Family Benefit Scheme (EFBS) and under the said Scheme on deposit of Rs. 4,82,677.36/- with SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant the petitioner started getting a monthly sum of Rs. 9,251.50/- i.e. the last Basic pay + D.A drawn by the petitioner. The said payment commenced from 23.12.2000 and was paid up to 29.02.2012 i.e. the date on which in normal course the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph Nos. 4 & 5 to the supplementary counter affidavit which reads as under: “4. That on 29.02.2012 since the petitioner attained the age of 60 years, he was paid the maturity amount of Rs. 5,16,001.36/- vide Cheque No. 302189 dated 15.03.2012. 5. that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,16,001.36/- includes a sum of Rs. 33,324.00/- in addition to the petitioner’s own deposited amount of Rs. 4,82,677.36/-. The additional amount of Rs. 33,324.00/- is the amount which was payable to the petitioner consequent upon the revision of his salary for which an office order was issued vide letter No. 2517 dated 24/27.10.2005.” 10. that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,16,001.36/- includes a sum of Rs. 33,324.00/- in addition to the petitioner’s own deposited amount of Rs. 4,82,677.36/-. The additional amount of Rs. 33,324.00/- is the amount which was payable to the petitioner consequent upon the revision of his salary for which an office order was issued vide letter No. 2517 dated 24/27.10.2005.” 10. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had already availed the benefit of EFBS for a period of almost 12 years and further on 15.03.2012, during the pendency of the writ application, he had also been paid the entire maturity amount as stated above and as such, in these premise, the petitioner is not entitled to any other benefit and writ petition has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed. 11. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, as per the rules, guidelines and legal propositions, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for on the following ground: (I) The petitioner opted Employee Benefit Scheme (in short EFBS) and under the said scheme on deposit of Rs. 4,82,677.36/- with SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant, the petitioner started getting a monthly sum of Rs. 9,291.50/- i.e. the last basic + D.A drawn by the petitioner. The said payment commenced from 23.12.2000 and was paid up to 29.02.2012 i.e. the date on which in normal course the petitioner would have attained the age of superannuation. (II) On 29.02.2012 since the petitioner attained the age of 60 years, he was paid the maturity amount of Rs. 5,16,001.36/- vide Cheque No. 302189 dated 15.03.2012. (III) The aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,16,001.36/- includes a sum of Rs. 33,324.00/- in addition to the petitioner’s own deposited amount of Rs. 4,82,677.36/-. The additional amount of Rs. 33,324.00/- is the amount which was payable to the petitioner consequent upon the revision of his salary for which an office order was issued vide letter No. 2517 dated 24/27.10.2005, as the petitioner had already availed the benefit of EFBS for a period of almost 12 years and further on 15.03.2012, during the pendency of the present writ application he had also been paid the entire maturity amount as stated. In view of the aforesaid reasons the petitioner is not entitled for any other benefit. The Hon’ble Apex in case of Sohan Lal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors reported in 2014 (16) SCC 68 in para 10 reads as under: “10. Insofar as the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 are concerned, we are of the view that the appellant having retired in the meantime the said provisions of the Act will have no application. As the appellant has already been granted additional compensation under the Scheme in force, we do not consider it appropriate to examine the entitlement of the appellant to any further benefits under the Act” The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of SAIL Vs. Madhusudan Das & Ors. Reported in 2008 (15) SCC, 560 in paragraph 15 held that "the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules.” 12. Similar views were also expressed by the Hon. Apex Court in Catena of decisions which says that if there is no provision in the scheme there can be no room for compassionate appointment. 13. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner has availed the benefit of compensation and as such in view of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, schemes and the judicial pronouncements, this writ petition merits dismissal. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.