S.G. Shah, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Utpala S. Bora for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Ajay R. Mehta for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Perused the record.

2. The petitioner herein has sought indulgence of this Court under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India praying to hold that the action of the respondent Corporation of not granting the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner No. 2 is arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, improper and contrary to their own scheme; with further direction to the respondent Corporation to grant the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner No. 2 with effect from the date of application and to pay regular wages to him.

3. It is undisputed fact that petitioner No. 1 is wife whereas petitioner No. 2 is son of the deceased employee of the respondent namely; Mangalbhai Khodabhai Bhoi who was appointed as fireman w.e.f. 28.5.1968. It is also undisputed fact that said Mangalbhai Khodabhai Bhoi, employee of the respondent Corporation died on 19.5.1998 when he was in services with the respondent. Since petitioners are legal heirs of such deceased employee of the Corporation, just within three days of the death of Mangalbhai Khodabhai Bhoi, petitioner No. 1 has applied initially for appointment on compassionate ground in favour of petitioner No. 2 pursuant to scheme for providing financial assistance in lieu of gainful employment to one dependent of employee who suffers permanent total disability or dies while in service of the ONGC and leaves his family in financial distress. Copy of such scheme in the form of Office Memorandum is placed on record at Annexure B. The bare perusal of the scheme makes it clear that respondent Commission may for rehabilitation of the family of such employee, who leaves his family in indigency and acute financial distress make a lump sum payment as per schedule provided in the scheme in lieu of any employment assistance. It is also confirmed by such scheme that the lump-sum consideration shall be decided at the headquarter of the Commission and it would completely absolve the Commission of any obligation to provide employment on compassionate ground to the spouse or dependent of the employee under the existing scheme. Therefore, the basic scheme of the Corporation is to provide lump-sum compensation to the family members of its deceased employee undergoing financial distress. However, paragraph 3 of the Scheme confirms that the Commission may; subject to availability of vacancies consider employment of the dependent family member of the employee, subject to his possessing the prescribed qualifications, experience and age requirement and fulfillment of the above requirements and if otherwise such legal heirs are satisfied for compassionate appointment as per all grounds enumerated thereunder, Corporation may at the sole discretion of the Corporation employ such person. However, in Paragraph 4 of the said Scheme, it is specifically stated that it is the sole discretion of the Commission to give financial assistance in terms of lump-sum amount as specified in the Scheme or to consider the dependent for gainful employment subject to above conditions, but no one can claim both the benefits. So far as conditions under paragraph 3 are concerned, at present, we are concerned with the relevant condition only which is to the effect that no additional post is required to be created and employment of such a dependent will be in the productive sphere so also at the discretion of the Corporation when it is contended that relaxation of qualification and experience will be at the sole discretion of the competent authority. One of the conditions specifically confirms that gainful employment to the dependent of deceased employee who dies as a result of accident while on duty may be given on top priority basis after ascertaining the suitability of the dependent through the duly constituted selection committee as per regulations. Such co