FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusNIZAMUDDIN AND ANR.

                            [2010] 3 S.C.R. 580


.,   A          FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.
                                      v.
                          NIZAMUDDIN AND ANR.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 2627 of 2010)

                             MARCH 23, 2010
     B
         [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

             Service Law: Compassionate appointment - Offer of
       voluntary retirement and request for compassionate
     C appointment when not interlinked or conditional - Each
       request to be decided independently even if both the requests
       made in same letter - On facts, voluntary retirement on
       medical grounds sought after completion of 55 years of age
       - Application of son of retiree for compassionate appointment
     D rightly rejected as circular dated 3. 7.1996 provided that
       benefit of compassionate appointment was available to" the
       dependents of departmental workers who sought voluntary
       retirement on medical grounds within the age limit of 55 years
       - Circular dated 3. 7.1996 issued by FCI.
     E
            On 16.2.1998, second respondent gave a letter to the
       employer-appellant seeking retirement on medical
       grounds and appointment of his son on compassionate
       grounds. The employer granted permission to the second
     F respondent to retire w.e.f. 30.4.2000. On 19.4.2003, the first
       respondent, son of second respondent submitted an
       application seeking compassionate appointment.
       Therei'.!fter, on 8.3.2003, the respondents filed a writ
       petition before the High Court seeking a direction to
     G employer to appoint first respondent on compassionate
       grounds. High court passed,interim direction to the
       employer to pass a spea~ing order on the said
       application. The employer passed order dated 13.3.2003
       holding that since the second respondent had crossed
     H                              58p
    FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. v.            581
            NIZAMUDDIN AND ANR.
the prescribed age of 55 years, the application for         A
compassionate appointment could not be entertained.
Subsequently, Single Judge of High Court dismissed the
writ petition. However, Division Bench of High Court held
that the first respondent was eligible for compassionate
appointment under the relevant scheme. Hence the            B
appeal.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: Appellant by its circular dated 3.7.1996
extended the benefit of compassionate appointment to C
 dependants of departmental workers who sought
voluntary retirement on medical grounds subject to the
condition that the worker who sought voluntary
retirement on medical grounds should apply within the
age limit of 55 years for the purpose of availing the D
benefits of compassionate appointment. The second
respondent sought voluntary retirement on medical
grounds on 16.2.1998, after completion of 55 years. As
the Scheme provided that benefit under it was available
only if the worker sought voluntary retirement on medical E
grounds before completin-g the age of 55 years, the
application for compassionate appointment was liable to
be rejected. In this case the offer of voluntary retirement
in the application was neither conditional nor-mtei'linked.
It merely contained two requests that is permission to F
retire voluntarily on medical grounds and request for
appointment for his son, without any interlinking. Nor
was the voluntary retirement conditional upon giving
employment to his son. Each request had to be
considered on its own merits with reference to the rules/ G
scheme applicable. When so done, the first respondent
would not be entitled to compassionate appointment.
[Paras 4, 5, 7) [584-E-F; 585-C-D; 587-F-H; 588-A]

    Food Corporation of India v. Ram Kesh Yadav (2007) 9 H
    .582      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A SCC 531, held inapplicable.

                            Case Law Reference:
           (2007) 9 sec 531           held inapplicable     Para 3
B       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2627 of 201 o.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 18.5.2007 of the High
    Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 579 of 2005.
C       Govind Goel, Ambuj Agarwal, Nitin Singh, Brijeshwar
    Singh, Dr. Kailash Chand for the Appellants.
           Bharat Sangal for the Respondents.
           -The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
        R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Second respondent was an
   employee of the appellant - Food Corporation of India ('FCI'
   for short). His date of birth was 8.2.1943. On 16.2.1998, the
 · second respondent gave a letter seeking retirement on medical
E grounds and appointment of his son on compassionate
   grounds. The said letter is extracted below:
           "Sub: Retirement on medical grounds and appointment of
           son/close relatives on compassionate grounds.
           I am working as H.L.   in F.S.D. Chandari Depot in gang
F                              \
           No.15. My health is not good. Physically I face difficulty in
           Sarder/ Manda/ Handling Labour/ Ancillary job. /, therefore
           request that the management may kindly retire me on
           medical grounds and at the same time give appointment
           to my Son/close relative Shri Md. Nizamudin aged 28.2.71
G
           years, in place as F.S.D. Chandri in this depot, because
           there is no other person in the family to look after us. He
           has promised to look after me and family after my
           retirement."

H                                                 [Emphasis supplied]
   FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. v.                      583
  NIZAMUDDIN AND ANR. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
      2. In pursuance of it, after medical examination FCI, by its   A
letter dated 29.4.2000 permitted the second respondent to
retire with effect from 30.4.2000. Nearly three years later, on
19.2.2003, the first respondent who is the son of second
respondent submitted an application seeking compassionate
appointment. A fortnight later, on 8.3.2003, the respondents         B
filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking a
direction to FCI to appoint the first respondent on
compassionate grounds. By interim order dated 13.3.2003, the
High Court directed the competent authority under FCI, to pass
a speaking order on the said application. In pursuance of it the     C
competent authority passed an order dated 13.3.2003 relevant
portion of which is extracted below :

     "With reference to the above subject, your application
     dated 19.2.2003 for appointment to the post of handling         0
     labour in FSD Chandari, Kanpur of the Food Corporation
     of India, has been considered sympathetically in the light
   . of interim order dated 13.3.03 passed by the Hon'ble High
     Court of Allahabad and the judgment dated 2.8.2002
     passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Petition          E
     No.43714 of 2001 Raj Nath Yadav and others vs. F.C.I. and
     also the. departmental rules and circulars.

    FCI Headquarters, New Delhi issued circular No. IR/U
    31 (27)/87 dated 3.. 7.96 contemplating norms for
    retirement on medical grounds as well the grant of benefit       F
    of appointment on compassionate grounds to the
    dependent of such employee who, at the time of
    application, was less than 55 years of age .

   . Since Suleman, who was working as handling labour at G
     FSD Chandari of F.C.I., had applied for retirement on
   ·medical grounds vide application dated 16.2.98, date of
   · birth of the said employee, as per the record of ttie
     department, being '8.12.1943, the concerned employee
                                                                     H
    584       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [201 O] J S.C.R.


A         had crossed the prescribed age of 55 years by about 2
          days. This fact has been corroborated by you in your
          application dated 19.2.2003. Therefore, as per rules of the
          department, your application cannot be entertained and
          your appointment on compassionate grounds is not
B         possible. Hence your application is hereby rejected."

        3. Subsequently, a learned Single Judge, by judgment
  dated 29.3.2005, dismissed the writ petition holding that the
  first respondent was not eligible for appointment in view of .
c conditions of the circular dated 3.7.1996. However a Division
  Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the
  respondents by judgment dated 18.3.2007 purporting to follow
  the decision of this Court in Food Corporation of India v. Ram
  Kesh Yadav [2007 (9) SCC 531]. The said judgment is
D challenged in this appeal by special leave. The question for
  consideration is whether first respondent is ~ntitled to claim
  compassionate appointment under the relevant scheme.

         4. FCI by its circular dated 3.7.1996 extended the benefit
E   of compassionate appointment to dependants of departmental
    workers who sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds
    subject to the following condition :

          'The worker who seeks voluntary retirement on medical
          grounds should apply within the age limit of 55 years for
F         the purpose of availing the benefits of compassionate
          appointment. The retirement on medical ground should be
          accompanied by medical certificate .... ".

  The application for compassionate appointment had to be
G made in the prescribed form, within three months from the date
  of retirement. Compassionate appointment was to be given
  only in deserving cases, that is, where there was no earning
  member in the family of the retired worker, or where it was found
  that the financial benefits which were available to the worker..
H
      FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. v.                      585'
     NIZAMUDDIN AND ANR. [R.V RAVEENDRAN, J.]
   on retirement were not be sufficient to meet the needs for           A
   runni.ng the family: The said scheme also provided that
  .compassionate appointment was discretionary:

        "Notwithstanding anything contained in the above,. the
        compassionate ground appointment i.s not as a matter of         8 .
      . right put purely at the discretion of the c9mpetent authority
        taking into account the circumstances and conditions of the
        family of the medically retired workers and also subject to
        availability of the vacancy."

           5. The second respondent sought voluntary retirement on C
     medical grounds on 16.2.1998, after completion of 55 years.
     As the Scheme provided that benefit under it was available only
     if the worker sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds .
     before completing the age· of 55 years, the application for
· ·· compassionate appointment was liable to be 11ejected.           D

         6. The High Court however held that the facts of the case
   were similar to the case of the applicant in Ram Kesh Yadav
   and having regard to the decision ofthis court in that case, the
 · first respondent was entitled to compassionate appointment · E
   In Ram Kesh Yadav, legal position under the Scheme dated
   3.7.1996 was explained thus:                                 ·

      "10. As rightly contended by FCI, the issue of voluntary
      retirement of an employee on medical grounds and the
      issue of compassionate appointment to a dependant of              F
      such retired employee are independent and distinct
      issues. An application for voluntary retirement has to .be
      made first. Only when it is accepted and the employee is
      retired, an application for appointment of a dependant on
      compassionate grounds can be made. Compassionate                  G
      appointment of a dependant is not an automatic
      consequence of acceptance of voluntary retirement. Firstly,
      all the conditions prescribed in the scheme dated 3-7-1996
      should be fulfilled. Even if a.II conditions as per guidelines
                                                                        H
    586      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A         are fulfilled, there is no "right" to appointment. It is still a
          matter of discretion of the competent authority, who may
          reject the request if there is no vacancy or if the
          circumstances and conditions of the family of the medically
          retired worker do not warrant grant of compassionate
B         appointment to a dependant. Therefore, the observation
          of the High Court in Nizamuddin that allowing the request
          of the employee for voluntary retirement on medical
          grounds and rejecting the application of the dependant for
          compassionate appointment on the ground of non-
e         fulfillment of conditions of scheme would amount to taking
          inconsistent stands, is clearly erroneous."

    In the case of Ram Kesh Yadav, the composite application
    dated 26.4.1999 of the employee seeking voluntary retirement
  . on medical grounds stated : "I desire to go on retirement on
0
    medical ground, if my above named son would be provided with
    an employment in my place as handling labour." In view of the
    peculiar wording of the letter seeking voluntary retirement this
    Court held that the aforesaid general principle will not apply and
    proceeded to hold a~ follows :
E
         "14. When FCI accepted the offer unconditionally and
         retired the second respondent from service by office order
         dated 29-7-2000, it was implied that it accepted the
         conditional offer in entirety, that is the offer made (voluntary
F        retirement) as also the condition subject to which the offer
         was made (appointment of his dependant son on
         compassionate grounds). In his application, the second
         respondent made it clear that he desired to retire voluntarily
         on medical grounds only if his son (the first respondent
G        herein) was provided with employment. If FCI felt that such
         a conditional application was contrary to the scheme or not
         warranted, it"dught to have rejected the application.
         Alternatively, it ought to have informed the employee that
         the compassionate appointment could not be given to his
H        son because he (the employee) had already completed 55




                              .·
    FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. v.                     587
   NIZAMUDDIN AND ANR. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

     years of age and that it will consider his request for           A
     retirement on medical grounds-delinking the said issue of
     retirement, from the request for compassionate
     appointment. In that event, the:employee would have had
     the option to withdraw his offer itself. Having denied him
     the opportunity to withdraw the offer, and having retired him    B
     by accepting the conditional offer, FCI cannot refuse to
     comply with the condition subject to which the offer was
     made."

  But this Court made it clear that the above position was in an      C
  exceptional situation where the offer of voluntary retirement was
  inextricably interlinked and conditional upon his son being
. offered appointment and the employer accepted and acted
  upon the conditional offer. This Court however reiterated the
 general rule as follows :
                                                                      D
     "19. We have upheld the direction for grant of employment
      only because of the acceptance of an interlinked
      conditional offer. Where the offer to voluntarily retire and
      request for compassionate appointment are not interlinked
    · or conditional, FCI would be justified in considering and       E
     deciding each request independently, even. if both
     requests are made in the same letter or application. Be
     that as it may."

                                             [emphasis supplied]
                                                                      F
      7. In this case the offer of voluntary appointment in the
application was neither conditional nor interlinked. The words
used are "I therefore request that the management r.1ay kindly
retire me on medical grounds and at the same time give
appointment to my son." It merely contains two requests (that         G
is permission to retire voluntarily on medical grounds and
request for appointment for his son), without any interlinking.
Nor was the voluntary retirement conditional upon giving
employment to his son. ~Jmerefore, Ramkesh Yadav will not
                                                                      H
     588     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A    apply. Each request had to be considered on its own merits
     with reference to the rules/scheme applicable. When so done
     it iS' clear that the first responde·nt will not be entitled to   ·
     compassionate appointment.

          8. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the
8
     judgment of the Division Bench and restore the order of the
     learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

    \D.G.                                          Appeal allowed.