Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner, namely, Gurusharan Prasad was a permanent Class III employee working on the post of Time Keeper under the respondent Corporation and he died in harness on 16.11.2009 leaving behind him his heirs and legal representatives including the writ petitioner. It is contended that because of sudden death of father of the petitioner, whole family is facing penury, yet the valid claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground has been arbitrarily rejected by the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the present application by referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. He submits that it is true that father of the petitioner died in harness on 16.11.2009 due to cardiac arrest, but the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent Administrator by the impugned speaking order. By placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is contended that for last three decades the Corporation is reeling under financial crunch, therefore, no appointment on compassionate ground of the dependents of the deceased employees of the Corporation has been made since 1984. It has been specifically pleaded by the respondents in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that even the regular appointment is not being made under the Corporation since 1984. It is highlighted that due to intervention and certain directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court revival scheme of the respondent Corporation has been under consideration and as per the findings of the committee so constituted for revival of
