ORDER : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') challenging the Award dated 04.09.2012 passed by the respondent no. 1 - The Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). 2. It has been submitted by Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shikhar Anand, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Corporation, that the Corporation had issued a circular on 03.07.1996 by which a regular worker/handling labour of the Corporation could avail the benefit of voluntary retirement on medical grounds if he made such application accompanied by a medical certificate in the prescribed format showing him to be medically unfit to handle loading and unloading work, and could also pray for appointment on compassionate ground of his next kin/male dependent in his place. 3. There were certain conditions attached to the said circular dated 03.07.1996. It was stated firstly, that the worker who seeks voluntary retirement on medical grounds should apply within the age limit of 55 years for the purpose of availing the benefit of compassionate appointment to be given to his male dependent. Secondly, such application should be accompanied with a medical certificate which was subject to verification by the Food Corporation of India. Thirdly, such application could be given only by handling labour for appointment on compassionate grounds of their male dependents whose minimum age should be 18 years and maximum age should not exceed 30 years. Fourthly, the compassionate appointment was to be given only in deserving cases where there was no other earning member in the family of retired worker and the financial benefits available to such retired worker were insufficient to meet the expenses for running the family. Fifthly, the application for such compassionate appointment was to be made within three months from the date of retirement of medically unfit worker and the dependents seeking such appointment was required to submit a medical certificate by an authorized medical officer confirming that he was fit to handle/carry bags of big size of above 95 kgs. 4. Fifthly, the application for such compassionate appointment was to be made within three months from the date of retirement of medically unfit worker and the dependents seeking such appointment was required to submit a medical certificate by an authorized medical officer confirming that he was fit to handle/carry bags of big size of above 95 kgs. 4. After the issuance of such circular, 30 workmen working in Chandari & Azamgarh Depot of Corporation filed their application for retirement on medical grounds to avail the benefit of appointment of next kin on compassionate grounds through the Workers' Union but the dependents of such workmen could not be given compassionate appointment. Their cause was taken up by the Workers' Union by moving an application on 07.02.2000 for initiation of conciliation proceedings resulting in a Reference being made by the Central Government to the respondent no. 1 in the following terms:- "Whether the action of management of the Food Corporation of India, Lucknow in not providing employment to next kin of workers (list enclosed) already retired on submission of their application on medical grounds is legal and justified, if not to what relief they are entitled? 5. The workmen before the Tribunal argued that the Corporation was guilty of adopting unfair labour practice as on the one hand it had retired the workmen prematurely and on the other hand it had rejected the claim of appointment of the male dependent. 6. It was the case of the Corporation before the Tribunal that none of these workmen had applied in the prescribed proforma with accompanying medical certificate, before they completed the age of 55 years and therefore, their case for appointment of their male dependents on compassionate grounds was rejected. During the course of the hearing before the C.G.I.T., the authorized representative of the workmen made a statement in writing that all the workers for whom the matter was referred for adjudication have settled their dispute with the Corporation and their male dependents have been appointed except for one Shambhu Prasad s/o Ramdas whose name finds place at serial no. 12 of the list enclosed with the reference order. 7. The Corporation contended before the respondent no. 12 of the list enclosed with the reference order. 7. The Corporation contended before the respondent no. 1 that the appointments were given to all others in compliance of order dated 17.10.2003 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10452 of 2003 and the order dated 17.03.2004 passed in Contempt Case No. 793 of 2004. In compliance of the orders passed by this Court dated 17.10.2003 and 17.03.2004, the matter was re-examined by the Headquarters in the light of the subsequent circular dated 17.12.1997, which provided that the age limit of 55 years be relaxed where the applications were received from workers before 01.10.1997. Under this circular, the dependents of those departmental workers who had already applied for retirement on medical grounds within the age of 56 years, at the time of application up to 01.10.1997, could be considered for compassionate appointment. In case, however the application was not received before 01.10.1997 the condition of age limit of 55 years would be strictly followed. 8. The Tribunal placed reliance upon Paper No. 45/9 which was filed as annexure-2 to the affidavit of the management witness Sri Ashok Kumar, Area Manager. The relevant contents of the said annexure as quoted in the Award impugned are as under:- S. No. Name of the employee Name of sons Date of Application Age on date of application 1. Shiv Darshan Gulab Singh Gautam 28.5.98 55 Yrs. 2 months 24 days 2. Ram Das Shamboo Pd. 10.2.98 55 yrs. 7 days 3. Shahdeo Ram Singh 25.01.99 55 Yrs. 23 days 4. Ram Naresh Next kin already appointed. 5. Mewa Lal Hari Prasad N.A. On the date of Med. Examination 55 yrs 5 Months 26 days 6. Suraj Bali Birendra Kumar 8.8.97 55 years 5 months 20 days 7. Shiv Nath Ram Prakash N.A. On dt. Of M/Exm. 55 Yrs. 10 month 02 days 8. Chhedi Lal Indra Pal Gautam 20.9.99 55 Years 4 months 26 days 9. Narayan Hari Lal 18.2.99 31.12.99 55 Yrs 08 months 28 days on 31.12.99 9. The Tribunal found that even if the circular dated 17.12.1997 was binding upon the Corporation, it had not followed the said circular as all the workmen whose dependents were adjusted later on, had preferred the application for voluntary retirement and compassionate appointment after 01.10.1997. Narayan Hari Lal 18.2.99 31.12.99 55 Yrs 08 months 28 days on 31.12.99 9. The Tribunal found that even if the circular dated 17.12.1997 was binding upon the Corporation, it had not followed the said circular as all the workmen whose dependents were adjusted later on, had preferred the application for voluntary retirement and compassionate appointment after 01.10.1997. The workmen were given the benefit of the circular in spite of the fact that they had crossed the mandatory age limit of 55 years. In the case of Shambhu Prasad, however the management was taking the plea that Ram Das, handling labour, who had made the application for voluntary retirement did not fulfill the conditions mentioned in the circular dated 03.07.1996 or 17.12.1997. The Tribunal observed that the action of the Corporation in not providing employment to Shambhu Prasad, the next kin of Ram Das, already retired on submission of application on medical ground, was neither correct nor justified and it directed the appointment of Shambhu Prasad from the date the workman Ram Das retired, with consequential benefits. 10. Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, has argued that the Tribunal had found from the evidence produced before it that the application for voluntary retirement on medical grounds had not been filed on time. There were other conditions also mentioned in the circular dated 03.07.1996 which were not fulfilled. Therefore, there was no good ground for the Tribunal to allow the Reference in favour of the workman's dependent Shambhu Prasad. Not only was the application not filed in time, it was not submitted in the prescribed proforma, nor accompanied with the medical certificate. The application for compassionate appointment made by Shambhu Prasad also was not made in prescribed proforma, and was not supported by the medical certificate of a competent doctor of fitness to carry one large bag of 95 kgs and work as handling labour. Moreover, in the circular dated 03.07.1996, there was a ceiling limit of 5% of total vacancies alone to be filled up through compassionate appointment. It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dinesh Kumar, J.T. 1996 (5) SC 319 and in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai, 1996 (6) SCC 394 , has held that appointment can be made on compassionate grounds only if vacancies are available for the said purpose. It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dinesh Kumar, J.T. 1996 (5) SC 319 and in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai, 1996 (6) SCC 394 , has held that appointment can be made on compassionate grounds only if vacancies are available for the said purpose. Moreover, in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramchandran Ambekar and others, 1994 (2) SCC 718 , the Court had held that no direction can be issued for compassionate appointment by the Court. The Court can only issue a direction for consideration of the claim for such appointment. 11. It has moreover been argued that the Tribunal erred in directing that appointment be given to Shambhu Prasad from the date Ram Das, his father retired with consequential benefits as Shambhu Prasad had not worked and the principle of 'No Work, No Pay' would apply and the Corporation could not be directed to give consequential benefits of appointment from a back date to Shambhu Prasad. 12. It has also been submitted that in the absence of any interim relief being granted, the respondent no. 2 had been given compassionate appointment on 18.06.2014 and he had joined on 18.07.2014. However, on an application being made by respondent no. 2 before the Regional Labour Commissioner, a show-cause notice has been issued under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Corporation with regard to the non-compliance with the directions to give consequential benefits to the workman. The facts with regard to the said issuance of notice under Section 29 have been brought on record by means of an application for interim relief by the petitioners before this Court, which was rejected by this Court on 31.05.2019. 13. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is settled position in law that only on the grounds of illegality or irregularity being committed earlier by the respondents, no litigation can be allowed in favour of a claimant, as it would amount to perpetuation of illegality. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to the judgment rendered by this Court in similar circumstances on 24.02.2011 in Writ A No. 3385 of 2007: Khushi Lal and others Vs. Food Corporation of India and others, filed as annexure S.A.-5 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners on 30.07.2019. 14. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to the judgment rendered by this Court in similar circumstances on 24.02.2011 in Writ A No. 3385 of 2007: Khushi Lal and others Vs. Food Corporation of India and others, filed as annexure S.A.-5 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners on 30.07.2019. 14. It has further been submitted that after submission of the application of the voluntary retirement by Ram Das on 10.02.1998, he continued to work up to 30.04.2000 and therefore, the Tribunal's order directing appointment of respondent no. 2 from the date of submission of application by Ram Das is unjustified and ought to be set aside. 15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in Yogendra Pal Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1987 (1) SCC 631 , to say that any preference shown in the matter of public employment on the grounds of descent only has to be declared as un-constitutional. While it may be permissible to appoint a person who is a son of a service man who is incapacitated while rendering service to the Government, a provision which confers a preferential right to appointment in a department on the descendants or other relatives of persons either in service or retired therefrom, merely because they happen to be the children or wards or other relatives of such persons, would be contrary to Article 16 because it would result in discrimination to others as they do not happen to be the sons of such persons. Opportunity to get into public service should be extended to all the citizens equally. 16. Moreover in this case, when a circular was issued by the Food Corporation of India, the eligibility conditions mentioned therein had to be strictly followed and no relaxation could be given in the same by the Tribunal. 17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India and another Vs. Nizamuddin and another, 2010 (4) SCC 546 and the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Raja Ram, 2010 (15) SCC 366. 18. Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel who appears for the respondent no. Nizamuddin and another, 2010 (4) SCC 546 and the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Raja Ram, 2010 (15) SCC 366. 18. Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel who appears for the respondent no. 2, has submitted on the basis of his counter affidavit that in the circular dated 03.07.1996 not only the procedure for taking voluntary retirement on medical grounds for regular handling labour was provided but a recruitment procedure of next kin of such departmental workers was also provided. On the basis of the said circular, 30 handling labourers of Food Storage Depot Chandari submitted their applications for appointment of their sons on compassionate grounds and at the same time sought premature retirement on medical grounds. All such applications were allowed except for those of nine workers during the pendency of the claim before the respondent no. 1, later on the Corporation had taken plea that 8 such workers were adjusted on the basis of the circular dated 17.12.1997 and in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court dated 17.10.2003 and 17.03.2004. The Tribunal had found on the basis of the affidavit of the employer's witness and paper no. 45/9, that in all such cases where compassionate appointment had been given to male dependents, the workers had submitted their application after 01.10.1997, the cut-off date mentioned in the circular dated 17.12.1997. It was a clear cut case of discrimination. 19. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that on a similar issue a bunch of five writ petitions was filed before this Court the leading case of which was Writ Petition No. 9013 (S/S) of 2011: Mukesh Vs. Food Corporation of India and others, was the leading case and this Court was pleased to allow all the writ petitions by its order dated 04.05.2017. This Court had set aside the order dated 29.10.2010 rejecting the application made by the writ petitioners and had directed that the writ petitioners be given appointment within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of the order was placed before the General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lucknow. The Corporation had filed Special Appeal (Defective) No. 413 of 2017 against the order of the learned Single Judge. The Corporation had filed Special Appeal (Defective) No. 413 of 2017 against the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench while allowing the application for condonation of delay had rejected the application for interim relief filed by the Corporation therein. 20. This court has gone through the Co-ordinate Bench judgment rendered on 04.05.2017 which has been filed as annexure-CA3 to the counter affidavit. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India and another Vs. Ram Kesh Yadav and another, 2007 (9) SCC 531. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforecited case had considered the circular dated 03.07.1996 in its entirety and mentioned the conditions given therein in paragraph 2 of the report. It thereafter referred to the application for voluntary retirement on medical grounds submitted by the departmental worker, a handling labour in Azamgarh Food Storage Depot which at the same time prayed for appointment of his son Ram Kesh Yadav. The second respondent therein had made a composite application on 24.06.1999 seeking compassionate appointment to his son (first respondent) on his voluntary retirement on medical grounds that he was unable to do handling work and desired to retire on medical grounds "if his son would be provided with an employment in his place as handling labour". The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the language of the application was in the nature of a conditional offer for voluntary retirement, only if his male dependent was taken in service on compassionate grounds. Such a conditional application either had to be accepted in its entirety or rejected in its entirety. Although the Food Corporation of India may be correct in stating that the issue of voluntary retirement of employee on medical grounds and the issue of compassionate appointment to the dependent of a retired employee are independent and distinct issues, and compassionate appointment of a dependent is not an automatic consequence of acceptance of voluntary retirement but in facts of the case it was found that the application dated 26.04.1999 being a composite application for conditional voluntary retirement on medical grounds, subject to the appointment of his son in his place, the Corporation could not have rejected the condition attached to such offer. 22. 22. The relevant paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the judgment rendered in Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) are quoted here in below: "11. But on facts, this case is different. The second respondent's application dated 26-4-1999 was a composite application for conditional voluntary retirement on medical grounds, subject to appointment of his son in his place. The application specifically stated that he desired to go on retirement on medical grounds if his son was provided with employment in his place. The second respondent had thus clearly indicated that if employment on compassionate ground was not provided to his son, he was not interested in pursuing his request for retirement on medical grounds. FCI ought to have informed the employee that he could not make such a conditional offer of retirement contrary to the scheme. But for reasons best known to itself, FCI did not choose to reject the conditional offer, but unconditionally accepted the conditional offer. There lies the catch. 12. When an offer is conditional, the offeree has the choice of either accepting the conditional offer, or rejecting the conditional offer, or making a counteroffer. But what the offeree cannot do, when an offer is conditional, is to accept a part of the offer which results in performance by the offeror and then reject the condition subject to which the offer is made. 13. In the context of the second respondent's conditional offer of voluntary retirement contained in the letter dated 26-4-1999, FCI had, therefore, the following options: (a) Reject the request for voluntary retirement on the ground that a conditional offer was contrary to the scheme and it was not willing to consider any conditional offer. (b) Reject the request for compassionate appointment on the ground that the employee was more than 55 years of age or on the ground that it was not a deserving case or because there was no vacancy, and then refer the employee to a Medical Board for compulsory retirement on medical grounds. (c) Require the employee to make separate applications for voluntary retirement on medical grounds and for compassionate appointment strictly as per rules and the scheme. (d) Accept the request of the employee for voluntary retirement on medical grounds subject to the condition stipulated by the employee and provide appointment to his son on compassionate grounds. 14. (c) Require the employee to make separate applications for voluntary retirement on medical grounds and for compassionate appointment strictly as per rules and the scheme. (d) Accept the request of the employee for voluntary retirement on medical grounds subject to the condition stipulated by the employee and provide appointment to his son on compassionate grounds. 14. When FCI accepted the offer unconditionally and retired the second respondent from service by office order dated 29-7-2000, it was implied that it accepted the conditional offer in entirety, that is the offer made (voluntary retirement) as also the condition subject to which the offer was made (appointment of his dependant son on compassionate grounds). In his application, the second respondent made it clear that he desired to retire voluntarily on medical grounds only if his son (the first respondent herein) was provided with employment. If FCI felt that such a conditional application was contrary to the scheme or not warranted, it ought to have rejected the application. Alternatively, it ought to have informed the employee that the compassionate appointment could not be given to his son because he (the employee) had already completed 55 years of age and that it will consider his request for retirement on medical grounds delinking the said issue of retirement, from the request for compassionate appointment. In that event, the employee would have had the option to withdraw his offer itself. Having denied him the opportunity to withdraw the offer, and having retired him by accepting the conditional offer, FCI cannot refuse to comply with the condition subject to which the offer was made." (emphasis supplied) 23. The judgment rendered in Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Food Corporation of India Vs. Raja Ram (2010) 15 SCC 366, decided on 17.4.2009. The Supreme Court had observed that appointment on compassionate ground in deviation from the normal rules of recruitment was conceived with the object of providing immediate financial relief to the dependents of a person who dies during his employment. It was intended to be a beneficial measure and not a means of obtaining employment as a matter of course by avoiding the rules of recruitment applicable to others. It had allowed the appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India and set aside the order of the High Court directing consideration of appointment of the first respondent. 24. It was intended to be a beneficial measure and not a means of obtaining employment as a matter of course by avoiding the rules of recruitment applicable to others. It had allowed the appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India and set aside the order of the High Court directing consideration of appointment of the first respondent. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Food Corporation of India Vs. Nizamuddin and another, 2010 (4) SCC 546 , had considered the judgment rendered in Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) and distinguished the same. It referred to the conditions of making the application for voluntary retirement and appointment on compassionate grounds mentioned in the circular dated 03.07.1996 in detail and then observed that the application for compassionate appointment had to be made in the prescribed form within three months from the date of retirement. Compassionate appointment was to be given in deserving cases, i.e. where there is no earning member of the family of the retired worker or where it was found that financial benefits which were available to the worker on retirement would not be sufficient to meet the needs for running the family. The scheme clearly provided that the compassionate appointment was discretionary and could not be claimed as a matter of right. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the peculiar words of the letter dated 26.04.1999 sent by the handling labour, the predecessor in interest of Ram Kesh Yadav, the respondent in the aforecited case. It was in view of the peculiar language of the letter seeking voluntary retirement that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the general principle would not apply and directed that since the Food Corporation of India had not informed the employee concerned that the compassionate appointment could not be given to his son because he (the employee) had already completed 55 years of age and that it will consider his request for retirement on medical grounds delinking the said issue of retirement, from the request of compassionate appointment. Since the Food Corporation of India had failed to inform the employee concerned, the Food Corporation of India was bound to give effect to the request made in the conditional application for voluntary retirement. 26. Since the Food Corporation of India had failed to inform the employee concerned, the Food Corporation of India was bound to give effect to the request made in the conditional application for voluntary retirement. 26. Having considered the judgment rendered in Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) and the words of the offer of voluntary retirement made in the case of Nizamuddin (supra), it held that the words used by Nizamuddin's father were "I therefore request that the management may kindly retire me on medical grounds and at the same time give appointment to my son." The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that such application merely contained two requests i.e. permission to retire voluntarily on medical grounds and a request for appointment of his son without any interlinking. Nor was the voluntary retirement conditional upon giving appointment to the son. Therefore, it held that the judgment rendered in Ram Kesh Yadav would not apply. Each request had to be considered on its own merits with reference to the Rules/scheme applicable. 27. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the Corporation before this Court, the application/letter dated 10.02.1998 sent by Ram Das, the father of Shambhu Prasad, has been filed as annexure-2. The language of the said letter dated 10.02.1998 is being quoted herein below:- "Sir, I am working as Sri Ram Das in F.S.D. Chanderi Depot in Gang no. 12. My health is not good. Physically I face difficulty in Sardar/Mandal/Handling Labour/Ancillary Labour. I therefore, request that the management may kindly retire me on medical ground and at the same time give appointment to my son/close relative Sri Shambu Prasad 25-7-1974 years in place as F.S.D. Chanderi in this depot, because there is no other person in the family to look after us. He has promised to look after me and family after my retirement. Yours faithfully sd/- Ram Das" (emphasis supplied) 28. From the language of the letter dated 10.02.1998, it is evident that the same language has been used as was used by the employee in the case of Nizamuddin (supra) referred to in paragraph-12 of the judgment rendered in Nizamuddin (supra). This Court therefore has no difficulty in holding that such a letter contained two requests. One for a permission to retire voluntarily on medical grounds and the other request was for the appointment of his son. There was no interlinking. This Court therefore has no difficulty in holding that such a letter contained two requests. One for a permission to retire voluntarily on medical grounds and the other request was for the appointment of his son. There was no interlinking. The offer for voluntary retirement by Ram Das was not conditional upon giving employment to his son. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Food Corporation of India acted arbitrarily in refusing to give appointment to the dependent Shambhu Prasad. 29. Moreover, this Court has also found from the Award impugned that only ground taken by the respondent no. 1 to allow the reference in favour of workmen was that there was an apparent irregularity/illegality in the Food Corporation of India accepting the applications of eight other workers while rejecting the case of Shambhu Prasad. It is settled law that if some benefit is given by the respondents to some persons illegally or arbitrarily, no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to commit the same illegality again in as much as, the Right to Equality cannot be extended to claim parity in illegal acts. Two wrongs would not make one right. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, 2000 (9) SCC 94 and in Lalit Mohan Pandey Vs. Pooran Singh, 2004 (6) SCC 626 , has clearly held that Article 14 has no application in such cases. 30. The Award impugned therefore cannot be sustained. However, this Court finds that in absence of interim relief being granted by this Court, Shambhu Prasad s/o Ram Das has already been given appointment by the Corporation on 18.06.2014. The Award dated 04.09.2012 is therefore modified to the extent that the appointment of Shambhu Prasad shall be effective from the date he joined the Corporation i.e. 18.07.2014 and he shall not be entitled for any consequential benefits in pursuance of such appointment. 31. The writ petition stands disposed of.