Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—I have heard Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.P. Singh, counsel for the respondents and have perused the record. As pleadings are complete, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.

2. The facts, in brief, are that one Mahendra Nath Misra, who was an employee of Food Corporation of India, working on the post of AG-III (Store), Jhansi, died in harness on 4.12.1991. The petitioner claims himself to be younger brother of deceased Mahendra Nath Misra. It is claimed by the petitioner that his brother Mahendra Nath Misra was suffering from Leprosy as well as Cancer. Since he was unmarried, the petitioner was looking after him, and in return, petitioner’s elder brother provided for education of the petitioner. Consequent to the death of his elder brother, the petitioner, on 10.2.1992, applied for appointment on compassionate ground. This application of the petitioner remained pending on account of a succession dispute between one Uma Devi, who claimed herself to be the legally wedded wife of Mahendra Nath Misra, and the parental family of Mahendra Nath Misra. It is claimed that the Civil Court ultimately, in the year 2004, decided the dispute whereby the claim of Uma Devi was rejected and the succession certificate granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner was upheld. After conclusion of the succession case, the petitioner again set in motion his claim for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the order dated 17.11.2008. The ground for rejection of the claim was that under the Govt. of India’s instructions only widow/ son/ daughter /adopted son or adopted daughter could be considered for compassionate appointment, therefore, the petitioner, who was brother of the deceased employee, was not eligible for consideration. It is this order, which has been impugned in this petition.

3. Alongwith his writ petition, the petitioner has enclosed a copy of circular No. 29 of 1990 dated August 20, 1990, which contains the scheme for compassionate appointment of a son/daughter/near relative of the deceased employee of Food Corporation of India.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the scheme, which was operative on the date of death of his elder brother, the benefit of compassionate appointment was available to a “near relative” also. He claimed, that since the term “near relative” has not been defined, it would, therefore, include a brother. He contended that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was thus wrongly rejected. On the question of delay of nearly 18 years in approaching this Court for seeking compassionate appointment, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay was not on the part of the petitioner, but for the reason that no orders were passed on his application on account of the succession dispute. More over, he submitted, that the scheme for compassionate appointment did not bar an application submitted with a delay. Referring to Clause VI of the Scheme, which provides that the appointing authority can also consider the request for compassionate appointment even when the death took place long ago, say five years or so, he submitted that the application can be entertained. He has further submitted that the delay cannot defeat his right to seek compassionate appointment, which had accrued to him on the date of the death of his brother.

5. Per contra, Sri N.P. Singh, who appeared for the Food Corporation of India, submitted that although the scheme for compassionate appointment had provided for appointment of a son/daughter/near relative of the deceased employee of a corporation, but subsequently, under the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Auditor General of India and others v. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao, (1994) 1 SCC 192, decided on 8.4.1993, vide circular No. 7 of 1997 dated 31.3.1997 the term “near relative” w