JUDGMENT
Sinha D.D., J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The Counsel for the petitioner states that father of the petitioner was working as Watchman in the employment of respondent-Board. The father of the petitioner underwent an operation sometime before March, 1984 and at later point of time, applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds. It is submitted that vide letter dated 13-3-1984, the father of the petitioner was asked to appear before the Medical Officer, Power Station Dispensary, Khaperkheda for medical examination, and after having examined the father of the petitioner, the concerned Medical Officer, certified that the father of petitioner was not mentally and physically fit to work as Watchman and, therefore, recommended the application made by the father of the petitioner for voluntary retirement on medical grounds. It is submitted that at later point of time, the respondent No. 2 issued a communication to the Stores Officer, Major Stores, B. MSEB, Khaperkheda, which is at Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the Stores Officer was asked to issue an order of retirement of the father of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to that order of retirement, the father of the petitioner was retired on medical ground and, therefore, the present petitioner, who is the son, is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the Scheme-CS 28 of the respondent-Board. The learned Counsel further contended that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under the above referred scheme is denied without there being any justification and, therefore, the action of the respondents-Board is arbitrary, illegal and cannot be sustainable in law and, therefore, appropriate directions may be given to the respondent-Board to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground.
3. Mr. Moharir, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board, does not dispute the factual aspects of the matter, however, expressed that taking into consideration the ban imposed by the respondent-Board on the recruitment to the posts in pay Group-I, II, III and IV, the recruitment process could not be undertaken and the ban is still in operation. The learned Counsel further contended that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground comes within the ambit of Pay Group-IV and by virtue of the imposition of the ban, and in view of excess manpower already exists in the Board, the claim of the petitioner, at this stage, cannot be considered. The learned Counsel submitted that, even otherwise, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rightly rejected by the respondent-Board. It is further submitted that the Competent Authority, after having scrutinized the relevant papers in regard to the case of the father of the petitioner, found that the option of voluntary retirement exercised by father of the petitioner was not genuine, but it was motivated by desire to ensure an employment to his son at the fag end of his tenure of service. The learned Counsel further states that the certificate issued by the doctor does not indicate any specific disease or bodily infirmity rendering petitioner’s father unfit, as required under the Regulation No. 17 of the MSEB Employees Service Regulations and, therefore, the intention of petitioner’s father for taking premature retirement was to get an employment to the petitioner. It is submitted that CS-28 to GSO 112 (Personnel) empowers the Competent Authority to examine cases with reference to all attendant circumstances to ensure that the concession granted thereunder is not misused or abused by persons who do not have genuine grounds to deserve the benefits and, therefore, the decision of the respondent-Board in question was taken after considering the petitioner’s case on merits, which is sustainable in law.
4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel and perused the relevant annexures, annexed to the petition by the petitioner as well as by the respondents with their re turn/submissions. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Medical Officer on 14-3-1984 issued a Certificate, after examining the father of the petitioner, which reads thus:
“After examining Shri K.M. Pathan, Watchman, I have come to conclusion that Shri K.M. Pathan is not mentally and physically fit to work as Watchman. Hence his application for voluntary retirement may be taken in mind with recommendation on Medical Ground.”
It is, therefore, evident that father of the petitioner, after he underwent the surgery before March 1984, while he was in service, had applied for voluntary retirement on medical ground and was required to appear before the Medical Officer for medical examination and the Medical Officer certified that the father of the petitioner was unfit to work as Watchman and at later point of time father of petitioner was retired from service on medical ground. The respondents have never challenged the validity of the medical certificate referred to above and, therefore, it is not open for them to take a view other than the one expressed by the Medical Officer, certifying that the petitioner’s father was not mentally and physically fit to work as Watchman, and they cannot now turn around and say that the voluntary retirement of father of the petitioner was not on medical ground merely because the respondents are of the view that the application for voluntary retirement of father of petitioner on medical ground was submitted by him with a view to obtain a job to his son. The Counsel for the respondents has not placed before us the provisions of Regulation 17 of MSEB Employees Service Regulations. In absence thereof, it is not possible for us to consider the veracity of the documents of the father of petitioner as well as validity of the certificate of the concerned doctor referred to herein above.
5. So far as imposition of ban on recruitment to posts in Pay Group-I, II, III and IV is concerned, that has been imposed, for the first time, in the year 2000 and the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, was required to be considered by the respondent in the year 1985, i.e. after retirement of father of the petitioner on medical ground and, therefore, in our considered view, the excuse of imposition of ban in the year 2000, should not have come in way of considering the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
6. For the reasons stated herein above, we dispose of the present petition by following directions :
The petitioner is held to be eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground under the Scheme CS-28, and we direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground under Scheme CS-28 and decide the same as early as passible and in any case not beyond the period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.