ORDER :

Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant has questioned the judgment and final order dated 21st July, 2006 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 167 of 2005, which was directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25150 of 2004, filed by the respondent herein.

3. The respondent, Raja Ram, is the son of one Nanku Ram, who was working as Handling labourer in the depot of the Food Corporation of India, Agra Cantonment. On 16th June, 1999, he applied to the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional office, Lucknow, for permission to retire on medical grounds and also asking that his son, the respondent herein, be allowed to work in his place, as there was no other person, other than him, to look after the family in the light of the assurance given by him that he would take care of the applicant worker after his retirement. The said application was supported by an affidavit, wherein in paragraph 3, the said Nanku Ram indicated as follows:

"...(3) That the elder son of the deponent namely Raja Ram, son of Nanku Ram is married and he lives separately from my family and me and he has nothing to do with my family and me, rather he looks after his own family only and now I do not have any relation with him now."

Apart from the said paragraph, in paragraph 4, the said Nankoo Ram has also gone on to indicate that his wife had died earlier and his daughter was already married and that he had no other heir and hence, he wanted the respondent herein to be taken in service in his place since he would take care of the applicant and his family, if taken into service in his place.

4. The said prayer made by the late father of the respondent was accepted partly on 24th July, 2000, when by an Office Order, his prayer for being allowed to retire from service was accepted and he was relieved from the service of the appellant on 25th July, 2000. However, as far as the second part of his prayer for appointment of his son in his place on compassionate grounds is concerned, the same was rejected on 2nd September, 2002.

5. The respondent filed the writ petition indicated hereinbefore, against the said order and the same came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 14th December, 2004, with a direction to the appellant to appoint the respondent as Handling Labourer forthwith, without any delay. The said order of the learned Single Judge was taken in appeal by the appellant before the Division Bench in the Special Appeal referred to hereinabove and the same was dismissed on 21st July, 2006 by the Division Bench simply by agreeing with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. The present appeal has been filed against the said judgment and orders of the learned Single Judge, as well as the Division Bench.

6. Apart from the application and the affidavit in support thereof, the learned Counsel for the appellant has also shown us the relevant Circulars containing the policy of the appellant regarding appointments to be made on compassionate grounds. In fact, it is the Circular dated 3rd July, 1996, which is applicable in the facts of this case since it relates to voluntary retirement and the extension of the benefit of compassionate appointment to a dependent without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange in respect of departmental workers, who were being allowed to retire voluntarily on medical grounds. It has been emphasised that the policy, as was originally promulgated on 2nd February, 1977, provided that a dependent, being a son, daughter, widow who had not re-married, and even a close relative, who gives an assurance to look after the family and whose family is left in indigent circumstances needing immediate assistance, there being no other earning member in the family, would be given appointment without following the formalities of being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, subject to the availability of