JUDGMENT : Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. 1. This writ petition was filed by two petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 was the father of the petitioner no. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner no. 1 died. The original petitioner no. 2, presently the sole petitioner is proceeding with this writ petition, claiming compassionate appointment in the service of the respondent no. 1, West Bengal Electricity Distribution Company Limited (previously known as West Bengal State Electricity Board), as the dependant of his father, who obtained voluntary retirement from his service as Group-D staff of the respondent no. 1. 2. Shortly stated, the facts of the present case are that in the year 1982, the petitioner no. 1, since deceased (hereinafter referred as “the father of the present petitioner”) joined the service of West Bengal State Electricity Board as a Group-D staff. On August 22, 2003 the father of the present petitioner filed an application to the West Bengal State Electricity Board stating that due to an illness, he had suffered permanent disablement and, as such, he should be allowed to appear before the Medical Board for obtaining voluntary retirement from his service and one of his dependant be allowed to join the service of the respondent no.1 on compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the father of the present petitioner appeared before the Medical Board of the respondent no.1 and on July 01, 2004 the Medical Board found him to be suffering from Parkinsonism and recommended for his voluntary retirement from service. By a letter dated July 31, 2004 the Manager, Industrial Relations of the respondent no. 1 informed the petitioner no. 1 that his prayer for voluntary retirement from service against employment of his dependant son has been examined by the competent authority but, as per the decision of the Government, employment could be considered to a dependant of an employee against voluntary retirement, only after the pending claims of the dependants of the deceased employees have been exhausted. By the said letter, the petitioner was informed that he may apply for voluntary retirement from his service as per the prevailing rules without any condition of employment of his dependant. On September 22, 2004 the father of the present petitioner filed an application to the General Manager of the respondent no. 1 praying for voluntary retirement from his service on medical ground as recommended by the Medical Board. On September 22, 2004 the father of the present petitioner filed an application to the General Manager of the respondent no. 1 praying for voluntary retirement from his service on medical ground as recommended by the Medical Board. By a separate letter dated September 22, 2004, the father of the petitioner requested the respondent no. 1 to consider his prayer for appointment of the present petitioner in the service of the respondent no. 1 on compassionate ground against his voluntary retirement from service. The respondent no. 1, although acceded to the request of the father of the petitioner to allow him to voluntarily retire from service due to permanent disablement but, did not accept his prayer to appoint the present petitioner on compassionate ground. Subsequently, the petitioner was allowed to voluntarily retire from his service with effect from January 01, 2005 and he was paid all his dues. Thereafter, in the year 2006 the present petitioner himself filed a representation before the respondent no. 1 for appointment on compassionate ground, but the same evoked no response. On August 21, 2008 the present petitioner and his father filed a Writ petition, being W.P. 3935 (W) of 2007 before this Court praying for compassionate appointment of the present-petitioner by the respondent no. 1 on the ground of his father having obtained voluntary retired from service due to his permanent disablement. By an order dated August 21, 2008 the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition by directing the present petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the respondent no. 4, the General Manager of the respondent no. 1, annexing thereto a copy of the writ petition and which would be considered and disposed of by the respondent no. 4 with the necessary order in accordance with the relevant rules. The present petitioner filed a representation before the respondent no. 4 and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by an order dated November 24, 2008 the respondent no. 4 rejected the petitioner’s representation for compassionate appointment against the voluntary retirement of his father. Challenging the said order dated November 24, 2008 passed by the respondent no. 4, the present petitioner and his father filed the instant writ petition. The present petitioner seeks for setting aside of the said order dated November 24, 2008 passed by the respondent no. 4 rejected the petitioner’s representation for compassionate appointment against the voluntary retirement of his father. Challenging the said order dated November 24, 2008 passed by the respondent no. 4, the present petitioner and his father filed the instant writ petition. The present petitioner seeks for setting aside of the said order dated November 24, 2008 passed by the respondent no. 4 and issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to give him appointment on compassionate ground against the voluntary retirement of his father, since deceased. As mentioned earlier, this writ petition was filed by the present petitioner as well as his father but, during the pendency of the writ petition, the father of the present petitioner died. 3. The writ petition is contested by the respondent no. 1, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and other respondents and they filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition to the writ petition. The petitioner also filed a supplementary affidavit and the respondent no. 1 also filed its counter-affidavit to the said supplementary affidavit. Assailing the impugned decision dated November 24, 2008 passed by the respondent no. 4, Mr. Soumik Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the Office Order No. C/IR/DD/EMP/242 dated April 04, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Office Order”) issued by the respondent no. 1, appointment on compassionate ground in case of death/premature retirement of the employees occurred prior to June 06, 2005, shall be governed by the provisions laid down in the Government Notification No. 308-303/EMP dated August 21, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Notification”) issued by the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal but, the respondent no. 4 passed the impugned decision dated November 24, 2008 without taking into consideration either the said Office Order or the said Notification. In this regard, Mr. Ganguly drew the attention of this Court to the said Office Order dated April 04, 2008, disclosed as Annexure - “P-2” to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the said Notification dated August 21, 2002 disclosed by the respondents as Annexure - “R-2” to the counter-affidavit. It was argued that from a bare reading of the said Office Order dated April 04, 2008 issued by the respondent no. It was argued that from a bare reading of the said Office Order dated April 04, 2008 issued by the respondent no. 1, it is evident that all cases of appointment on compassionate ground in case of death/premature retirement of employees of the respondent no. 1 occurring prior to June 06, 2005 shall be dealt with as per the said Notification subject to availability of vacancies as well as subject to certain other restrictions. Therefore, according to the petitioner, when his father voluntarily retired from his service due to permanent disablement prior to June 06, 2005 and, as on December 31, 2004, that is, the date of retirement of his father, his age was below 40 years and he is a commerce graduate, the impugned decision dated November 24, 2008 passed by the respondent no. 4 is vitiated by arbitrary exercise of power. On these grounds, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged for setting aside of the impugned order dated November 24, 2008 passed by the respondent no. 4. 4. However, Mr. Sumit Roy, learned advocate appearing for a the respondents contended that in the present case, by letter dated July 31, 2004, the respondent no. 1 informed the father of the present petitioner that his prayer for voluntary retirement would be accepted without any condition of employment of any dependant and, as such, in his first letter dated September 22, 2004, addressed to the respondent no. 4, the father of the petitioner had prayed for voluntary retirement from his service without any condition for compassionate appointment of the present petitioner and he accepted voluntary retirement from his service with effect from December 31, 2004 without insisting for the compassionate appointment of the present petitioner. Mr. Roy further submitted that even as per Clause 2 of the said Notification (appearing at page 10 of the counter-affidavit of the respondents to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner) a dependant of an employee of the respondent no. 1, who voluntarily retired from his service due to any permanent disablement, is entitled to compassionate appointment provided on premature retirement the employee could not be entitled to full pensionary benefits to which he/she would have been entitled to, if he/she had retired on his/her normal age of superannuation. 1, who voluntarily retired from his service due to any permanent disablement, is entitled to compassionate appointment provided on premature retirement the employee could not be entitled to full pensionary benefits to which he/she would have been entitled to, if he/she had retired on his/her normal age of superannuation. It was argued that in the present case, the present petitioner has not claimed that due to voluntary retirement from service his father did not obtain full pensionary benefits to which he would have been entitled to on his normal age of superannuation. Urging these facts the respondent no.1 pressed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have carefully considered the materials on record and the arguments advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The present petitioner’s father was allowed to voluntary retire from his service on the ground of permanent disablement with effect from December 31, 2004. The present petitioner has challenged the impugned decision of the respondent no. 4 dated November 24, 2008 thereby rejecting his representation for compassionate appointment in the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. on the ground of his father’s voluntary retirement from his service. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 has committed a patent illegality in passing the impugned decision inasmuch as, the same is contrary to the said notification dated August 21, 2002 issued by the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal. In their affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, the respondents have disclosed a copy of the said notification dated August 21, 2002 issued by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(a) of the West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in State Government Establishments and Establishments of Public Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Government Companies and Local Authorities Act, 1999. Clause 2 of the said notification dated August 21, 2002 provides for the right of a dependant of an employee retiring permanently owing to permanent disablement or otherwise being incapacitated to continue in service subject to fulfillment of four conditions. In this regard, the relevant portion of clause 2 of the said notification dated August 21, 2002 is extracted hereinbelow. “2. In this regard, the relevant portion of clause 2 of the said notification dated August 21, 2002 is extracted hereinbelow. “2. Dependents of employees who retired being incapacitated : (1) The benefit of the offer of employment on compassionate ground to a dependent wife/son/daughter/near relation of an employee retiring prematurely owing to being disabled permanently or otherwise incapacitated rendering him/her unfit to continue in service will be availableif and only if such employee fulfils all the 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 ground; (iii) He/she had two years of service or more left to reach the age of superannuation; and (iv) The financial condition of the family is so acute as to make the appointment essential consequent upon the fall in income due to such retirement. (2) ………………………….. (3) …………………………. (4) …………………………. (5) …………………………… (6) ……………………………” 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed against the petitioner’s supplementary affidavit, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner’s father, since deceased not only accepted the offer of the distribution company for his voluntary retirement from his service without any condition of employment of his dependent but, even otherwise the petitioner’s father received his all terminal benefits, as well as pension. Therefore, according to the respondents when the petitioner’s father, since deceased on his premature retirement was entitled to and obtained the full pensionary benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had retired at his normal age of superannuation. Therefore, as per the said notification dated August 21, 2002 the petitioner as the dependent of his deceased father is not entitled to obtain any compassionate appointment in the distribution company. 7. The petitioner could not dispute that after his deceased father was allowed to voluntary retire for his service on the ground of permanent disablement with effect from December 31, 2004, his father obtained retirement benefits and full pensionary benefits to which he would have otherwise entitled to if he had retired at the normal age of superannuation. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner to challenge the impugned decision dated November 24, 2008 passed by the respondent no. 4. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner to challenge the impugned decision dated November 24, 2008 passed by the respondent no. 4. 8. For the reasons as aforesaid, the writ petition being W.P. 15668 (W) of 2010 stands rejected. Interim order passed is also stands vacated. 9. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.