JUDGMENT : SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned Counsel appearing for the sole respondent-writ petitioner. 2. This is an intra court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 assailed the correctness of the judgment and order dated 11.7.2018 passed in the Writ Petition No.-6935 (S/S) of 2018 (Harish Chand Vs. Food Corporation of India through its Chairman cum Managing Director and Others.). 3. The respondent in the appeal has approached the Writ Court by filing Writ Petition NO.-6395 (S/S) of 2018 for the following main reliefs:- (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioners under the scheme circulated vide circular dated 03.07.1996 for appointment on compassionate ground to the next kin on medical ground. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.12.2010 passed by respondent No. 2, contained as Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition. (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to grant parity of the judgment and order dated 04.05.2017 passed in writ petition No. 9013 (SS) of 2011 and other 4 connected writ petitions for appointment to the petitioners on compassionate ground." 4. The brief facts of the case are as under:- Smt. Chanari Devi mother of respondent herein, was engaged as Handling/Ancillary Labourer in the Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India at Azamgarh. 5. The appellants herein issued a circular dated 3.7.1996 providing therein appointment on compassionate ground to the next kin of departmental worker/labour, who seeks retirement on medical ground. 6. After coming into force of the aforesaid provisions for appointment on compassionate ground to the next kin of departmental labourers seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds, mother of the applicant submitted a composite application dated 7.3.2002 the relevant contents whereof are quoted below for ready reference:- "Most respectfully, I beg to state that I have been serving under you as A/L dt. FCI FSD Azamgarh since long and I have still quite a long period to served under you. FCI FSD Azamgarh since long and I have still quite a long period to served under you. As I am unable to do A/L work I desire to go on retirement on Medical ground, my above named son could be provided with an employment in the place as a H/L. Further, I am only earning member of my family and on my retirement, if none of my family is employed, the entire family would be put to extreme hardship. In the said circumstances, I pray to you to kindly allow me to go on retirement on medical ground and provided employment to my above named son/next kin in place as H/L and oblige." I hope, you will kindly consider my case sympathetically and do the needful on priority." 7. Vide order dated 31/7/2002 mother of the respondent was allowed to retire with effect from 31/7/2002 on voluntary ground (medical ground) but in accordance with the circular dated 3.7.1996 the compassionate appointment was not provided to the respondent, though the respondent had completed due formalities in the matter. 8. On account of the inaction of appellants herein in not providing the appointment to the respondent on compassionate ground as provided under the circular dated 3.7.1996 the respondent approached this Court by filing Writ Petition no.-Writ A No.-28296 of 2007. 9. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2010 with direction to consider the application of the respondent for compassionate appointment as per the scheme so available at the time when the composite application of the respondent was accepted by Food Corporation of India/appellants herein. The order dated 18.11.2010 is quoted below:- "It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is similar to that as in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28295 of 2007, which has already been allowed vide order of date. This writ petition also accordingly stands allowed in the same terms. The impugned order dated 7.5.2004 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider application of the petitioners for compassionate appointment as per scheme so available at the time when the composite conditional application of the petitioners was accepted by F.C.I. If petitioners fulfil all other requisite conditions of eligibility etc., they shall be considered for appointment accordingly. The impugned order dated 7.5.2004 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider application of the petitioners for compassionate appointment as per scheme so available at the time when the composite conditional application of the petitioners was accepted by F.C.I. If petitioners fulfil all other requisite conditions of eligibility etc., they shall be considered for appointment accordingly. This entire exercise shall be completed by respondents within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before him." 10. After the order dated 18.11.2010 passed by this Court the appellants considered the case of the respondent, and vide order dated 29.12.2010, the request for compassionate appointment was rejected. 11. The respondent challenged the order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the appellants in the writ petition wherein the judgment under appeal dated 11.07.2018 has been passed. 12. In the writ petition, with regard to the delay in approaching the Court it has been mentioned that the petitioner-respondent herein, is a poor person and hence could not approach the Court challenging the rejection order dated 29.12.2010 and on coming to know about the judgment dated 4.5.2017 passed by this Court in similar cases, the petitioner, respondent herein, moved a representation to the authorities with request to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner-respondent herein, in the light of the judgment dated 4.5.2017 (passed in leading Writ Petition No.-9013(S/S) of 2011 Mukesh Versus Food Corporation of India). 13. In response to the writ petition, a detailed counter affidavit was filed by the appellants and one of the main plea taken in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner-respondent herein, has approached the Court after a long delay i.e. after lapse of more than 7 years and being a fence sitter his petition was not entitled to be entertained. On merits in the counter affidavit it has been stated that the right of the petitioner-respondent herein, with respect to compassionate appointment is only to the extent that his case can be considered for the said purpose and he has no fundamental right to be appointed under the scheme. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that on account of non availability of requisite vacancy the case of the petitioner-respondent herein for compassionate appointment was rejected on 29.12.2010. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that on account of non availability of requisite vacancy the case of the petitioner-respondent herein for compassionate appointment was rejected on 29.12.2010. In addition it has also been stated that the compassionate appointment is not a normal mode of appointment and after a long delay claimant is not entitled for compassionate appointment as it frustrates the very purpose and object of the scheme. 14. In the rejoinder affidavit on the issue of delay the petitioner-respondent herein, has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353 Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others and on the basis of the same the assertion made in the counter affidavit to the fact that delay/laches is not an absolute impediment to exercise of judicial discretion and rendering of substantial justice and it has further been stated in the affidavit that the petitioner-respondent herein, being a poor person/labourer, who was facing hardship after retirement of her mother and after death of bread earner of the family due to the said reason could not approach the Court earlier. 15. On merits in the rejoinder affidavit in reply to the contents of counter affidavit it has been stated that under the scheme/circular dated 3.7.1996, the petitioner-respondent herein, has right to get appointment on compassionate ground and for that under the scheme a composite application dated 7.3.2002 was submitted before the authorities and the authorities/ appellants on one hand allowed the mother of the petitioner-respondent herein to retire, and on other hand in arbitrary manner did not provide appointment to the petitioner. It has also been stated that in similar circumstances this Court passed the judgment dated 4.5.2017 and directed the appellants to provide the compassionate appointment to the petitioners of the writ petitions and allowed the writ petitions vide judgment and order dated 4.5.2017. 16. It has also been stated that in similar circumstances this Court passed the judgment dated 4.5.2017 and directed the appellants to provide the compassionate appointment to the petitioners of the writ petitions and allowed the writ petitions vide judgment and order dated 4.5.2017. 16. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellants Sri Anurag Verma, while assailing the judgment and order dated 11.7.2018, is that while dealing with the writ petition the Hon'ble Single Judge failed to consider the submissions made before the Writ Court as well as the contents of the counter affidavit, in which the plea of delay in approaching the Court was specifically taken, as well as the Hon'ble Single Judge has also not considered the case of the appellants on merits and without quashing the impugned order dated 29.12.2010 disposed of the writ petition with direction to consider the representation/case of the respondent for compassionate appointment. Further submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Writ Petition ought not to have been entertained or decided in favour of the respondent-petitioner which was filed after almost 7 years from the date of cause of action accrued to the respondent for approaching the competent Court challenging the order dated 29.12.2010 and consequential reliefs sought. In support of point of delay in approaching the Court, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments:- 1. (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 322: Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman and Managing Director and Another v. K. Thangappan and another; 2. (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 115: C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another; 3. (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 179: State of Uttranchal and another v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others; 4. (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 602: State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalalpuri and others; 5. (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 600: Union of India and others v. Shri Hanuman Industries and another. 17. It has also been argued that without quashing the order dated 29.12.2010 the Hon'ble Single Judge has erred in disposing the writ petition in favour of the respondent with a direction to the appellants to consider the case/ representation of the respondent for compassionate appointment. 18. 17. It has also been argued that without quashing the order dated 29.12.2010 the Hon'ble Single Judge has erred in disposing the writ petition in favour of the respondent with a direction to the appellants to consider the case/ representation of the respondent for compassionate appointment. 18. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner has submitted that the respondent is legally entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground under the scheme/circular dated 03.07.1996 keeping in view the fact that a composite application for retirement and compassionate appointment dated 07.03.2002 was preferred by the mother of the respondent under the scheme/circular dated 03.07.1996 and mother of the respondent was allowed to retire on the basis of said application but appointment was not provided to the respondent as well as the earlier judgment and order dated 18.10.2010 passed in the Writ Petition filed by the respondent which was binding between the parties, according to which the case of the respondent has to be considered on the basis of scheme available at the relevant time and, being so, no subseqeunt scheme, as such, can be considered in the case of the respondent. Further submission of learned Counsel for the respondent is that appellants being State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India are required and under an obligation to act in a fair and reasonable manner and could not act arbitrarily or whimsically. The appellants ought to have extended the benefit of judgment dated 4.5.2017 passed by this Court in similar cases in which similar impugned orders were challenged as it is a settled principle that the State should not compel each and every similarly situated person to approach the Court for the reliefs which the Court has already granted to similarly situated persons. In the instant case the relief granted to the persons covered under the Judgment dated 4.5.2017 is declaratory in nature as the similar orders have been quashed, after considering the case law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and being so the appellants should have treated the respondent similar to the petitioners of the writ petitions decided on 4.5.2017 and should have extended the benefits of the same. It was on account of not extending the benefit / parity of the judgment dated 4.5.2017 the respondent was compelled to file the writ petition. It was on account of not extending the benefit / parity of the judgment dated 4.5.2017 the respondent was compelled to file the writ petition. Needless to say that in the writ petition one relief sought is to the effect that benefit of the judgment dated 4.5.2017 be extended to the petitioner. On the delay in approaching the Court, the submission of learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Anuj Kudesia, is that due to financial hardship the petitioner could not approach this Court and on coming to know about the order dated 4.5.2017 he represented to the appellants and due to inaction on the representation of the respondent, the petitioner approached the Writ Court. 19. It has also been argued by Sri Anuj Kudesia that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India Versus Ramkesh Yadav reported in JT (2007) 4 page 1, considered the scheme/circular dated 3.7.1996 and the contents of composite application for compassionate appointment and voluntary retirement on medical ground and thereafter up-held the direction for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. 20. Learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out paragraph nos.-2, 4 and 19 of the said judgment. In paragraph 2 the scheme has been mentioned, in paragraph no.-4 the relevant contents of the application has been mentioned and in paragraph no.-19 the Hon'ble Apex Court up-held the direction for grant of employment. The relevant paragraphs as mentioned hereinabove, are quoted below:- 2. The Appellant -Food Corporation of India (for short 'FCI'), introduced a scheme for granting compassionate appointment to dependants of departmental workers, who died while in service or who were retired by FCI on medical grounds, vide Circular dated 2.2.1977. By a subsequent circular dated 3.7.1996, the said benefit of compassionate appointment was extended to dependants of departmental workers who sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds at their own request, subject to the conditions stipulated in the said circular. The conditions, in brief, are : (a) The worker should seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds before completing the age of 55 years. (b) Such request should be accompanied by a medical certificate issued by an Authorised Medical Officer, subject to verification by FCI. The conditions, in brief, are : (a) The worker should seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds before completing the age of 55 years. (b) Such request should be accompanied by a medical certificate issued by an Authorised Medical Officer, subject to verification by FCI. (c) The benefit of compassionate appointment shall be given only to a male dependant, (of the age group between 18 years and 30 years), that too in the handling labour category, subject to an Authorised Medical Officer confirming the medical fitness of such dependant to handle/carry bags of big size. (d) The application for compassionate appointment shall be made in the prescribed form, within three months from the date of retirement. (e) Compassionate appointment will be given only in deserving cases, that is, where there is no earning member in the family of the retired worker, or where it is found that the financial benefits which are available to the worker on retirement will not be sufficient to meet the needs for running the family. 4. The Second Respondent was working as a Departmental worker (Handling Labour) in the Azamgarh Food Storage Depot of the appellant. The date of birth of second respondent was 6.2.1944. In the usual course, he would have attained the age of superannuation on 6.2.2004. The second respondent made a composite application dated 26.4.1999 seeking compassionate appointment to his son (the first respondent) on his voluntary retirement on medical grounds, stating thus : "Sub: Appointment of my son Sri Ram Kesh in consideration of my retirement on medical ground ..as I am unable to do handling work of loading due to inability of carrying bags, I desire to go on retirement on medical ground, if my above-named son would be provided with an employment in my place as handling labour. Further I am the only earning member of my family and on my retirement if none of my family is employed, the entire family would be put to suffer hardship. Kindly allow me to go on retirement on medical ground and provide employment to my above named son in my place as handling labour" 19. We have upheld the direction for grant of employment only because of the acceptance of an inter-linked conditional offer. Kindly allow me to go on retirement on medical ground and provide employment to my above named son in my place as handling labour" 19. We have upheld the direction for grant of employment only because of the acceptance of an inter-linked conditional offer. Where the offer to voluntarily retire and request for compassionate appointment are not inter-linked or conditional, FCI would be justified in considering and deciding each request independently, even if both requests are made in the same letter or application. Be that as it may." 21. We have considered the pleadings on record and submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties. 22. We find from the judgment dated 11.07.2018, under appeal, that the Hon'ble Single Judge without quashing the order dated 29.12.2010 and considering the contents of the same in the light of averments made in the writ petition as well as counter affidavit, has disposed of the writ petition finally with direction to the appellants to consider the representation/ case of the petitioner-respondent herein, for appointment on compassionate ground under the scheme/ circular dated 3.7.1996. 23. Without considering the other aspect and issue of the case, we are of the view that order dated 29.12.2010 ought to have been considered and quashed on merits and in absence of the same, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge are unsustainable. 24. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the case, we set aside the order dated 11.7.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for a fresh decision with a request that the same may be considered expeditiously, if possible, within three months subject to other matters on Board. 25. Accordingly the appeal is allowed as above.