A conditional application for voluntary retirement must be accepted in its entirety or rejected, and the authorities must consider the implications of relevant circulars in relation to compassionate appointments.

ORDER :

1. The Appellant who was an employee of the Railways applied for voluntary retirement on the ground of medical ailments, subject to appointment of his son Mukesh Mewari on compassionate ground. The Respondent-Union of India through Divisional Railway Manager, W.C. Railways, Jabalpur allowed the request of the Appellant, in part, by accepting the voluntary retirement without considering the prayer for grant of compassionate appointment to his son. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed Original Application No. 200/00398/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, (for short “Tribunal”) which was allowed vide order dated 11.2.2016. The directions issued by the Tribunal are as under:

“8. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on circular No. E(NG)II/2009/RC1/CR/2 dated 12.11.2014 issued by the Railway Board wherein it is clarified that a railway employee can be termed as medically decategorized only when he/she has been declared unfit in his/her original post as well as original medical category but fit in lower medical category/post, is misplaced since the applicant had already voluntarily retired with effect from 18.09.2013 i.e. before coming int existence of circular dated 12.11.2014 and, therefore, the applicant’s case is fully covered by the earlier circular dated 14.05.2006. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of S.S. Grewal vs. State of Punjab and Others, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 234 also cannot strengthen their case.

9. In the result, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider applicant’s claim for appointment of his son on compassionate ground in terms of the circular dated 14.05.2006 within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. No costs.”

2. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 7540 of 2016 before the High Court, which was allowed in part vide order dated 12.1.2017. The High Court remitted the matter with certain observations. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as thus:

“However, while doing so, the Tribunal lost sight of the crucial fact that circular dated 12.11.2014 was not a circular which created a right for the first time. It was only a clarification of the circular dated 14.06.2006 (wrongly been mentioned as 14.05.2006 by the Tribunal in its order) where the right for claiming appointment and question of invalidation on medical ground was laid down and circular issued on 12.11.2014 was only a clarificatory circular. Without taking note of the circular dated 14.06.2006, merely allowing the application by holding that the circular dated 12.11.2014 would not be applicable, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in dealing with the matter. The Tribunal should have first examined the matter in terms of circular dated 14.06.2006, interpreted it in the manner as canvased by the parties and thereafter the effect of its clarification on 12.11.2014 should have been taken note of by the Tribunal. That apart, once the claim of the employee for granting compassionate appointment was rejected on 11.02.2015 without challenge to this order, the question would be as to whether the application itself was maintainable before the Tribunal is also a crucial question. As all these questions have not been adverted to by the Tribunal in right perspective, we allow this petition, quash the order passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The Tribunal is directed to proceed in the matter and decide the application now within a period of three months.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.”

3. On remand, the Tribunal vide order dated 18.12.2017 dismissed the same with an observation that the Board Circular dated 12.11.2014 gives clarification to the words “medically decategorised” which is clarificatory to the ori