SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 275

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee & R. V. Raveendran
Food Corporation of India & AnotherPETITIONER
versus
Ram Kesh Yadav & AnotherRESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 3451 of 2006
Decided on 27/02/2007

The court emphasized the need to examine the terms of the scheme governing compassionate appointments and ensure that the claim satisfied the requirements before directing compassionate appointment.

Headnote:

Compassionate Appointment - Employment Scheme - 3.7.1996 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) introduced a scheme for granting compassionate appointment to dependants of departmental workers who died while in service or were retired on medical grounds. The second respondent, a departmental worker, sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds and requested employment for his son. FCI accepted the retirement request but rejected the compassionate appointment request due to the worker's age exceeding the limit of 55 years.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that once FCI accepted the request for retirement on medical grounds, it was obliged to give appointment to the dependant and cannot turn down the request on technical grounds. The court found that FCI's acceptance of the retirement request implied acceptance of the conditional offer for compassionate appointment.

Issues: The issues included the eligibility for compassionate appointment, the inter-linking of retirement and compassionate appointment requests, and the discretion of the competent authority in granting compassionate appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that FCI's acceptance of the retirement request implied acceptance of the conditional offer for compassionate appointment. It also highlighted the need to examine the terms of the scheme governing compassionate appointments and ensure that the claim satisfied the requirements before directing compassionate appointment.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and FCI was given two months to appoint the first respondent as per the High Court's order. Neither the retired employee nor his son was entitled to claim any benefits due to the delay in issuing the offer of appointment.

JUDGMENT

RAVEENDRAN, J.

This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated 19.9.2005 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 615 of 2005 affirming the judgment dated 29.3.2005 of a learned Single Judge in CMWP No. 13032 of 2003.

2. The Appellant - Food Corporation of India (for short FCI), introduced a scheme for granting compassionate appointment to dependants of departmental workers, who died while in service or who were retired by FCI on medical grounds, vide Circular dated 2.2.1977. By a subsequent circular dated 3.7.1996, the said benefit of compassionate appointment was extended to dependants of departmental workers who sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds at their own request, subject to the conditions stipulated in the said circular. The conditions, in brief, are :

a) The worker should seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds before completing the age of 55 years.

b) Such request should be accompanied by a medical certificate issued by an Authorised Medical Officer, subject to verification by FCI.

c) The benefit of compassionate appointment shall be given only to a male dependant, (of the age group between 18 years and 30 years), that too in the handling labour category, subject to an Authorised Medical Officer confirming the medical fitness of such dependant to handle/carry bags of big size.

d) The application for compassionate appointment shall be made in the prescribed form, within three months from the date of retirement.

e) Compassionate appointment will be given only in deserving cases, that is, where there is no earning member in the family of the retired worker, or where it is found that the financial benefits which are available to the worker on retirement will not be sufficient to meet the needs for running the family.

The Scheme designated the Senior Regional Manager/Regional Manager as the competent authority and made it clear that compassionate appointment is discretionary. The Scheme stated :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the above, the compassionate ground appointment is not as a matter of right but purely at the discretion of the competent authority taking into the account the circumstances and conditions of the family of the medically retired workers and also subject to availability of the vacancy."

3. The Second Respondent was working as a Departmental worker (Handling Labour) in the Azamgarh Food Storage Depot of the appellant. The date of birth of second respondent was 6.2.1944. In the usual course, he would have attained the age of superannuation on 6.2.2004. The second respondent made a composite application dated 26.4.1999 seeking compassionate appointment to his son (the first respondent) on his voluntary retirement on medical grounds, stating thus :

"Sub: Appointment of my son Sri Ram Kesh in consideration of my retirement on medical ground

as I am unable to do handling work of loading due to inability of carrying bags, I desire to go on retirement on medical ground, if my above-named son would be provided with an employment in my place as handling labour. Further I am the only earning member of my family and on my retirement if none of my family is employed, the entire family would be put to suffer hardship. Kindly allow me to go on retirement on medical ground and provide employment to my above named son in my place as handling labour"

[Emphasis supplied]

As on the date of the said application (26.4.1999), his age was 55 years 2 months and 20 days. In pursuance of the said application, the second respondent was retired from service as on 31.7.2000, vide office order dated 29.7.2000. Before that date, the Azamgarh Branch of FCI had also forwarded a proposal dated 26.5.2000 to its Lucknow Regional Office, for appointing the second respondents son (first respondent) on compassionate grounds.

The Regional Office rejected the said request for compassionate appointment vide letter dated 19/21.12.2001 addressed to the Azamgarh Office on the ground that se






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top