Judgment:
Vineet Saran, J.
1. Nankoo Ram, father of the petitioner, was a Handling Labourer in the Food Corporation of India, Agra. In terms of the Circular of the Food Corporation of India, dated 3.7.1996, Nankoo Ram applied on 16.6.1999 (wrongly shown as 16.6.1996) for his premature retirement. At that time, he was just below 54 years of age. Alongwith the application for premature retirement, Nankoo Ram also applied for his son Raja Ram, i.e. the petitioner, being appointed on compassionate ground in terms of the Circular, dated 3.7.1996, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. In response to the said application, Nankoo Ram was medically examined by a team of Doctors of the District Hospital which issued a Certificate dated 24.12.1999 declaring said Nankoo Ram to have become incapacitated for doing the handling work. Nankoo Ram was thus declared medically unfit and was retired with effect from 25.7.2000 when he was 55 years and 7 days old. The said Nankoo Ram thereafter expired on 17.2.2001.
2. At the time, when the application for voluntary retirement of Nankoo Ram, father of the petitioner, was being processed, simultaneously, the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was also being processed by the Food Corporation of India in terms of its Circular dated 3.7.1996. On 9.3.2000, a Committee constituted by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Agra, had conducted the performance test of the petitioner he was issued fitness certificate by the competent authority. Since, according to the petitioner, he had completed all the formalities and had also fulfilled the requisite qualifications in terms of the Circular, dated 3.7.1996, for appointment on compassionate ground; and as the application for retirement of Nankoo Ram, father of petitioner, on medical grounds had already been accepted and he had been retired in pursuance thereof, the petitioner claims that the respondents should have simultaneously given him appointment on compassionate grounds. By the impugned order, dated 31.8.2002/2.9.2002, passed by Deputy Manager on behalf of the Senior Regional Manager of the Food Corporation of India, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected in the light of Point No. 3 of the affidavit, dated 8.12.1999, of late Nankoo Ram, father of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter, filed an application for reviewing the said order, which has also been rejected by order, dated 1.2.2003, passed by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the same and also for a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to appoint him on the post of Loader/Handling Labourer in place of his father Nankoo Ram.
3. I have heard Sri R.C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Nripendra Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation and have perused the record.
4. It is not denied that in terms of the Circular, dated 3.7.1996, appointment on compassionate grounds can be given to the dependent of a Handling Labourer being declared medically unfit, provided the application is filed by the; Handling Labourer prior to his attaining the age of 55 years on the basis of which he is retired from service. It is not in dispute that the application had been filed by the father of the petitioner, prior to his attaining the age of 55 years and that the petitioner is eligible and qualified for such appointment. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that since in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, dated 8.12.1999, filed by Nankoo Ram, father of the petitioner, it has been stated that the petitioner Raja Ram stays separately with his family, hence appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be given in terms of Condition No. (v) of the Circular dated 3.7.1996. The said Condition No. (v) only provides that compassionate appointment can be given only in cases where there is no earning member in the family of the retired worker. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit, dated 8.12.1999, of Nankoo Ram it has not been stated that the petitioner, who is son of Nankoo Ram, was having an independent source of income. However, the said paragraph cannot be read in isolation and has to be read alongwith the entire affidavit. In Paragraph 4 and 5 of the same affidavit, it has been categorically stated by said Nankoo Ram that he had two children, i.e. one son and one daughter. The son is Raja Ram (the petitioner) and the daughter is married and staying separately. It was also stated by Nankoo Ram that he was not well and because of old age, he was unable to do the Job of Handling Labour and, thus, his son Raja Ram may be provided the job, so that he could look after his (Nankoo's) family. Thus, in my view the ground taken for rejecting the application of the petitioner which only states that 'the documents/papers received in RO have since been examined and the competent authority has rejected the application of the applicant Sh. Raja Ram for his appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the Point No. 3 of the affidavit, dated 8.12.1999, of late Sh. Nanku Ram and Hqrs. guidelines/instructions contained in Circular No. IR(L)/31(27)/87 dated 3.7.1996' is not proper, and it appears that the same has been passed without application of mind and on a misreading of the affidavit, dated 8.12.1999, of Nankoo Ram. Further, Nankoo Ram, father of the petitioner, who was an illiterate person and could not even sign, but used to affix his thumb-impression, cannot be expected to know the technicalities of law. Affidavits, especially those filed by illiterate persons, cannot be read and interpreted as statutes. In the present case, the entire affidavit has to be read and understood as a whole. The respondents cannot pick out one paragraph or sentence from here and there and arrive at a conclusion which is different from the reading of the whole document. The affidavit read in its totality, alongwith other applications filed by the petitioner as well as his father Nankoo Ram categorically stating that the petitioner is unemployed, have to be taken into account. Ignoring the said documents and placing reliance on one isolated paragraph in an affidavit cannot be said to be justified.
5. For the foregoing reasons, in my view, the order, dated 31.8.2002/ 2.9.2002, passed by the Deputy Manager on behalf of the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Agra, deserves to be set aside and is accordingly quashed, and so is the order, dated 1.2.2003, passed by District Manager, Food Corporation of India, passed on the review application of the petitioner. Since the petitioner fulfils all the conditions and is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds in place of his father Nankoo Ram in terms of the Circular dated 3.7.1996, it is directed that the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lucknow, Respondent No. 2 shall provide appointment to the petitioner as Loader/Handling Labourer forthwith, without any delay.
6. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.