ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 04-07-2024 Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. K.D.Chatterji, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

“For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.08.2011 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and contained in his Ref. No. P&A/1331/SPF/ER dated 08.08.2011, whereby and where under the Respondent No. 3 has been pleased to communicate that R-3 Option under the SABF Scheme is not admissible to a married child and directed the petitioner to exercise option R-1 under the SABF Scheme.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities to provide a suitable appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds whose father died in harness on 05.11.2007, while he was in services of the respondents.

(iii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present writ petition are as under :

(i) The father of the petitioner had died on 06.11.2007. (ii) The petitioner claiming to be the eldest son of the deceased employee had filed an application (undated) opting R- 3 Option under the “Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme”, (hereinafter to be referred as the “SABF Scheme”) for considering his case for being appointed on compassionate ground.

(iii) The petitioner has admitted in the writ petition that he was married on the date he had filed the application but no clear date has been mentioned anywhere in the writ petition.

4. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground as stated in the counter affidavit that the respondents having found that Option R-3 under SABF Scheme is not admissible to a married child and had directed the petitioner to exercise Option R-1 under SABF Scheme considering his entitlement for Option R-1, which relates to grant of terminal benefit to the petitioner. The petitioner in this regard was communicated the Board of Trust’s decision held on 06.12.2006, as contained in Annexure R/2 to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. In pursuance of the said communication, after waiting for some time, the respondents released an amount of Rs. 7.57 lacs, Rs.7.45 lacs and Rs. 7.45 lacs respectively in the year 2008 and 2011 in favour of Sambhu Kumar Singh, Rohit Kumar and Raj Kumar Singh , sons of the deceased employee, on account of settlement of terminal benefits.

5. Mr. K.D. Chatterji, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) informs that at the relevant point of time, the deceased employee had left behind him three sons and the petitioner being the eldest son placed his choice for Option R-3 of SABF Scheme, which was rejected considering his marital status. He further clarified that in respect of other two sons of the deceased employee including the petitioner, the respondents took decision to grant Option R-1 of SABF Scheme and communicated to all the three sons of the deceased employee vide letter no. P&A/1331/SBF/ER dated 22.11.2007, pursuant to the 33rd meeting of the Board of Trust held on 06.12.2006. The decision was followed by the Inter Office Memo dated 03.04.2007 in marketing division, wherein it was clearly stated that Option R- 3 is inadmissible to the married children of the deceased employee. All the three sons being entitled to their share of terminal benefits were accordingly paid.

6. Learned counsel further proceeded to clarify the fact that the petitioner can not take benefit of the decision of the Board in respect of Option R-3 under the sc