JUDGMENT :

NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 19.08.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Writ Petition No. 5560 of 2021. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants and upheld the rejection of the appellant No.1’s claim for compassionate appointment with the New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent-company”), under the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector General Insurance Companies.

3. The appellant No.2, the father of the appellant No.1, applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds before he attained the age of 55 years. The application was accompanied by a certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Gondia, certifying him as permanently incapacitated for further service. The respondent-company did not reject the said certificate before the appellant No.2 crossed 55 years. Nor did it call upon him before that date to submit a certificate from a duly appointed Medical Board. It called for such a certificate only after appellant No.2 crossed 55 years, and thereafter rejected the appellant No.1’s claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that the appellant No.2 had retired after completing 55 years.

4. The issue, therefore, is whether the respondent-company, after receiving a retirement application on medical-ground before the employee crossed the age threshold, could keep the application pending, communicate the deficiency only after the age threshold had crossed, and then rely upon that very consequence to deny the dependent’s claim.

5. The facts of the case are that the appellant No.2, Ramnarayan Mahadeo Madankar, joined the respondent-company on 18.10.1984. He initially joined as sub-staff/Peon and was later working as Assistant Clerk-cum-Cashier at the Gondia Branch. His date of birth is 10.12.1960. The respondent-company introduced the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector General Insurance Companies by circular dated 12.11.2014, with effect from 01.11.2014. The Scheme reopened compassionate appointments in cases of death in service and retirement on medical grounds due to incapacitation before the employee reached 55 years of age.

6. The appellant No.2 suffered serious neurological problems while in service. The Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Gondia issued a certificate on 21.07.2015 recording that the appellant No.2 was about 54 years old and was completely and permanently incapacitated for further service. On the very next day, i.e. 22.07.2015, the appellant No.2 submitted his application for voluntary retirement on medical grounds. The application recorded his date of joining as 18.10.1984, his date of birth as 10.12.1960 and his total service as 30 years and 8 months. It is not in dispute that the appellant No.2 had not completed 55 years on the date of his application.

7. As the application remained pending, the appellant No.2 sent a reminder on 06.11.2015 stating that he had submitted his VRS application dated 22.07.2015 with necessary documents and had not received any acknowledgment from the office. He sent another reminder on 01.12.2015, again stating that the VRS application had been submitted with necessary documents, that he had already sent one reminder on 06.11.2015, and that he had still not received any acknowledgment or status from the office.

8. These two reminders were sent before the appellant No.2 completed 55 years on 10.12.2015. Thus, before the age threshold expired, the respondent-company had before it the VRS application dated 22.07.2015, the Civil Surgeon’s certificate dated 21.07.2015 and two reminders requesting action. Yet, before 10.12.2015, the respondent-company neither accepted the application nor rejected the medical certificate, nor called upon the appellant No.2 to produce a Medical Board certificate.

9. The respondent-company’s own stand is that it ca