JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. 1. Appeal is directed against the order dated June 26, 2023 passed in WPA 11858 of 2023 by which, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to consider the application for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with law. 2. Appellants are aggrieved by such order on the ground that, the Writ Court did not possess requisite jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition since, the deceased employee was an employee of Gun & Shell Factory which is a department under the Union of India. Consequently, in view of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the writ petition was not maintainable. The other grounds is that, in view of the scheme obtaining for grant of compassionate appointment, since the employee was retired on medical grounds after crossing age of 55 years the writ petitioner was not entitled any compassionate appointment. 3. Referring to the events occurring prior to the filing of the writ petition, learned advocate appearing for the appellants draws attention of the Court to the fact that, the application for compassionate appointment, assuming that, the letter dated March 4, 2022, could be considered as such an application, the same did not give rise to a claim for compassionate appointment as the employee retired on September 23, 2022 after attaining the age of 55 years on July 21, 2022. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants relies upon (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 730 (V. Sivamurthy versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Others) and in particular to paragraphs 33, 34, 35 thereof and contends that, since the employee was retired subsequent to attaining age of 55 years, the writ petitioner is not entitled compassionate appointment. 5. Relying upon a decision of Bombay High Court reported at 2023 BHC-NAG (Shri Nitin versus Union of India) learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, similar issue was considered in respect of an employee of Gun & Shell Factory and request of compassionate appointment was disallowed. 6. In his usual fairness, learned advocate appearing for the appellants draws the attention of the Court to the co-ordinate Bench decision dated March 12, 2024 rendered in MAT 137 of 2023 (Union of India & ors. Vs. Sanjay Kundu) and submits that, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was decided as against the appellants. 7. Vs. Sanjay Kundu) and submits that, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was decided as against the appellants. 7. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, the sequence of events would show that, the application for grant of compassionate appointment was made prior to the employee crossing the threshold age of 55 years. Moreover, he submits that, the employee suffered injury on February 3, 2021. Employee was treated at the hospital on February 3, 2021 and was referred to a private hospital on February 4, 2021. The first application for grant of compassionate appointment was made on February 16, 2021 while second application was made on March 4, 2022. Both applications were prior to the employee reaching the age of 55 years. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, request for constitution of Medical Board was made much prior to the crossing of the threshold of 55 years. He refers to the sequence of events and submits that, there was a delay in the constitution of Medical Board and the authorities taking a decision with regard retirement on medical grounds. There was inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in deciding the fate of the employee suffering injury. Injury was suffered in the course of the employment. Therefore, he submits that, the private respondent is entitled to grant of compassionate appointment or at least consideration thereof as directed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Records placed before the Court demonstrates that, the date of birth of the employee who was retired on medical ground is July 22, 1967. Such employee suffered injury on February 3, 2021 during the course of his employment. He was treated initially at the hospital and referred to a private hospital on February 4, 2021. On February 16, 2022, a letter was received by the authorities from the wife of the employee stating that, the employee was unable to discharge his regular duty due to his physical incapacitation. He was under treatment in hospital. Thereafter, on the basis of such intimation, by a letter dated February 29, 2022, the controlling officer of Gun & Shell Factory prepared the assessment report in terms of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Recommendation was made that, the employee was not fit to be retained in service. 10. He was under treatment in hospital. Thereafter, on the basis of such intimation, by a letter dated February 29, 2022, the controlling officer of Gun & Shell Factory prepared the assessment report in terms of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Recommendation was made that, the employee was not fit to be retained in service. 10. By a letter dated March 4, 2022, the wife of the employee intimated the authorities that, employee was still under medical treatment and was unable to perform his regular duty due to paralysis. She requested the authorities to take appropriate steps. This letter does not contain any request for retirement on medical grounds or for compassionate appointment. 11. Consequently, a Medical Board was constituted on May 26, 2022 to assess the fitness of the employee. Medical Board so constituted submitted its opinion on July 6, 2022. Medical Board was of the opinion that, there was no reasonable prospect on the employee concerned to ever be fit to resume duty. Medical Board also opined that, employee was completely incapacitated for further service of any kind in Ordnance Factory. 12. It is the contention of the private respondent that, despite the writing dated May 26, 2022, requiring the Medical Board to submit its opinion within a specified time, Medical Board submitted its opinion belatedly on July 6, 2022. We are, however, unable to accept such contention since, Medical Board is required to form a opinion not only on clinical examination of the employee but on scientific data also. Therefore, it is reasonable that, Medical Board takes sometime for the scientific investigation in order to form an opinion with regard to the issues raised. The Medical Board submitted a report dated July 6, 2022 after being asked to be constituted by a writing dated May 26, 2022. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find such time taken to be unreasonable for the Medical Board to form its opinion. 13. On July 21, 2022, the employee attended the age of 55 years. On July 28, 2022, Director of Health Service, Government of India, Ministry of Defence approved the opinion of the Medical Board dated July 6, 2022. After such approval, the same was forwarded to the Chief Medical Officer on August 1, 2022. The Chief Medical Officer informed the next authority to take appropriate steps by a writing dated August 3, 2022. 14. After such approval, the same was forwarded to the Chief Medical Officer on August 1, 2022. The Chief Medical Officer informed the next authority to take appropriate steps by a writing dated August 3, 2022. 14. Thereafter, on August 23, 2022, the authorities communicated the findings of the Medical Board to the employee. In such communication, the authorities referred to the guidelines and requested the employee to intimate whether, the employee concerned desires to retire on medical ground on an earlier date as prescribed or from a date as fixed by the authorities. 15. In response thereto by writing dated September 6, 2022, the employee expressed his acceptance of the findings of the Medical Board and requested the authorities to take necessary action at the earliest. Employee did not make any counter effort nor did the employee stated he should be retired from a particular date. 16. The authorities thereafter, proceeded to treat the employee as retired from service on medical ground with effect from September 23, 2022 by writing of such date. 17. It is the contention of the private respondent that, the letter dated September 6, 2022 was obtained from the employee under threat of withholding of retiral benefits and since the employee concerned was 100% incapacitated he gave his thumb impression on such letter. 18. The letter dated September 6, 2022 of the private respondent was disclosed by way of supplementary affidavit. Writ petitioner was allowed an opportunity to deal with such supplementary affidavit. In the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner dealing with the supplementary affidavit such contention of the writ petitioner was not made out. Such contention was not raised in the writ petition itself. These facts that, the writ petitioner accepted the offer of the authorities dated August 23, 2022 were the writing dated September 6, 2022 was not placed on record in the writ petition itself. 19. V. Sivamurthy (Supra) considers compassionate appointment on medical invalidation of a serving Government employee. It considers the relevant provisions of the scheme for compassionate appointment. It is of the following view :- “33. 19. V. Sivamurthy (Supra) considers compassionate appointment on medical invalidation of a serving Government employee. It considers the relevant provisions of the scheme for compassionate appointment. It is of the following view :- “33. The “five-year left over period” is capable of being commenced with reference to any one of the following dates : (i) the date of application by the Government servant for medical invalidation; (ii) the date of report of the Medical Board certifying that the government servant required to be medically invalidated; (iii) the date of recommendation by the State/District Level Committee in regard to medical invalidation; and (iv) the date of issue of orders of retirement on medical invalidation. “34. The contention of the appellants is that once an application is made by a government servant at a point of time when the left over period of service is more than five years, the medical examination by the Medical Board, recommending process by the District/State Level Committees and consideration and decision by the State Government, is not in the hands of the Government servant and therefore neither he nor his dependant should be punished by denying compassionate appointment on account of delays on the part of the authorities. The appellants therefore contend that the eligibility should be determined with reference to date of application and not with reference to date of sanction. But the terms of the scheme are clear. The benefit of compassionate appointment is available to a son/daughter/spouse of a government servant who retires from service on medical invalidation five years before attaining the age of superannuation. Under the scheme therefore, the five year cut-off period commences from the date of retirement from service on medical invalidation and not from the date of application by the government servant for retirement on medical invalidation. This was also clarified in the G.M dated 25.6.1999 which forms part of the scheme. 35. The issue is not what is most advantageous to the government servant, but what is the actual term of the scheme. The question is not whether an interpretation which is more advantageous or beneficial to the government servant should be adopted. The question is whether the policy as it stands which is clear and unambiguous, is so unreasonable or arbitrary or absurd as to invite an interpretation other than the normal and usual meaning. Matters of policy are within the domain of the executive. The question is whether the policy as it stands which is clear and unambiguous, is so unreasonable or arbitrary or absurd as to invite an interpretation other than the normal and usual meaning. Matters of policy are within the domain of the executive. A policy is not open to interference merely because the court feels that it is not practical or less advantageous for government servants for whose benefit the policy is made or because it considers that a more fairer alternative is possible. Compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule of appointment, can only be claimed strictly in accordance with the terms of scheme and not by seeking relaxation of the terms of the scheme. The fact that on account of certain delays in processing the application, a government servant may lose the benefit of the scheme, is no ground to relax the terms of the scheme. If in a particular case the processing of an application is deliberately delayed to deny the benefit to the government servant, the inaction may be challenged on the ground of want of bona fides or ulterior motives. But where the time taken to process the application (through Medical Board, District/State level Committee and the Government) is reasonable, the government servant cannot contend that relief should be extended, even if the left over period is less than five years. Let us give an example. If an application for compassionate appointment on the ground of medical invalidation is given five years and one week before the date of superannuation, obviously the Government servant cannot expect the entire process of scrutiny, medication examination, recommendation and consideration at three levels should be completed in one week. He cannot contend that when he had made the application the left over period was more than five years and therefore his dependant is entitled to appointment. As stated above these are matters of policy and courts will not interfere with the terms of a policy, unless it is opposed to any constitutional or statutory provision or suffers from manifest arbitrariness and unreasonableness.” 20. The Bombay High Court in Shri Nitin (supra) considered the same provisions of compassionate appointment as governing the present appeal. Shri Nitin (supra) refers to V. Sivamurthy (supra) and it quotes paragraph 35 thereof in the judgment. The Bombay High Court in Shri Nitin (supra) considered the same provisions of compassionate appointment as governing the present appeal. Shri Nitin (supra) refers to V. Sivamurthy (supra) and it quotes paragraph 35 thereof in the judgment. It is of the view that since the employee was allowed to be retired on medical grounds after attaining the age of 55 years, the writ petitioner therein was not entitled to grant of compassionate appointment. 21. V. Sivamurthy (supra) is of the view that in the event the Court holds that there delay in considering the application for compassionate appointment was not inordinate then, where the employee is allowed to retire on medical ground after attaining the age of 55 years, request for compassionate appointment should be denied. 22. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment. While considering a plea for grant of compassionate appointment a Court is required to find out whether there exists a scheme for the same governing the terms of employment of the employee concerned. It is also required to consider the parameters governing the grant of such appointment and whether the applicant satisfies the terms thereof. In a given case, there may arise an issue of delay in disposal of the request for grant of compassionate appointment when the applicant therefor fulfilled the qualifications for the grant. Such delay is required to be assessed in the facts and circumstances of each case to arrive at a finding as to whether the delay on the part of the authorities was inordinate and therefore the right of the applicant was not defeated. 23. To assess whether there was inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in the facts and circumstances of this case the relevant clauses governing the field of compassionate appointment are required to be understood and the relevant provisions are as follows :- “1. OBJECT The object of the Scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. 2. 2. TO WHOM APPLICABLE To a dependent family member- (A) of a Government servant who- (a) dies while in service (including death by suicide); or (b) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the CCS (Medical Examination) Rules 1957 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group ‘D’ Government Servants); or (c) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group ‘D’ Government servants); or” 24. There exists a scheme for compassionate appointment governing the employee concerned and the relevant provisions governing the same are set out in the preceding paragraph. Such a finding is returned on the basis of the materials placed on record and on admission of the parties. Clause 1 of the scheme contemplates grant of compassionate appointment if the employee leaves his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Such essential conditions are required to be fulfilled by the family of the employee concerned while applying for compassionate appointment. No material is on record on such an issue. Clause 2 of the scheme disallows grant of compassionate appointment for an employee who crossed the age of 55 years on the date of retirement on medical grounds which is the case here. Clauses are unambiguous and do not labour on alternate meaning. Compassionate appointment can be granted to an employee who retired before attaining the age of 55 years in terms of Clause 2 and the family of such employee satisfies the financial condition of Clause 1. 25. Admittedly the employee concerned was allowed to retire on medical ground after crossing the age of 55 years. Private respondent/writ petitioner claims that there was inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in considering the grant of retirement on medical grounds and that such delay cannot adversely affect the right of the private respondent/writ petitioner to obtain compassionate appointment. 26. The contention of inordinate delay on the part of the authorities requires consideration. Private respondent/writ petitioner claims that there was inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in considering the grant of retirement on medical grounds and that such delay cannot adversely affect the right of the private respondent/writ petitioner to obtain compassionate appointment. 26. The contention of inordinate delay on the part of the authorities requires consideration. In the facts of the present case, as discussed above, we are not in a position to return a finding that, there was inordinate delay on the part of authorities in considering the request for grant of retirement on medical ground. In fact, the first letter from the side of the employee is through his wife dated February 16, 2021. Such letter does not speak of grant of retirement on medical grounds. The second letter is dated March 4, 2022 again specifically, the grant of retirement on medical grounds is also not stated therein. However, the authorities proceeded on the basis of the letter dated March 4, 2022 formed Medical Board and on the basis of the opinion of the Medical Board ploughed through the hierarchy to decide on the grant of retirement on medical grounds. Decision to do so was communicated by the letter dated August 23, 2022 which was unconditionally accepted by the employee concerned by the writing dated September 6, 2022. Thereafter, the employee was allowed to retire with effect from September 22, 2022. In the meantime the employee concerned crossed the age of 55 years on July 21, 2022. 27. In the facts of the present case, there was no undue delay in the authorities in considering the request for grant of premature retirement on medical grounds and since the employee attained the age of 55 years on the date when he was allowed to retire on medical grounds in view of the provisions of the scheme for compassionate appointment governing the employee concerned, the writ petitioner is not entitled to grant of compassionate appointment. 28. The co-ordinate Bench in Union of India & Ors. vs. Sanjay Kundu (MAT 137 of 2023) held that the writ Court is vested with the jurisdiction in similar circumstances as the present appeal to entertain a writ petition. In any event, the learned advocate for the appellant did not press the issue of jurisdiction in view of the decision of the co-ordinate Bench rendered in Sanjay Kundu (supra). 29. vs. Sanjay Kundu (MAT 137 of 2023) held that the writ Court is vested with the jurisdiction in similar circumstances as the present appeal to entertain a writ petition. In any event, the learned advocate for the appellant did not press the issue of jurisdiction in view of the decision of the co-ordinate Bench rendered in Sanjay Kundu (supra). 29. In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order passed in the writ petition and allow MAT 1723 of 2023 without any order as to costs. All connected applications are disposed of accordingly. 30. I agree.