LexASHOK KUMAR MEWARI versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 16 S.C.R. 1535 : 2023 INSC 1092 1535 CASE DETAILS ASHOK KUMAR MEWARI v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 7956 of 2023) DECEMBER 05, 2023 [J.K. MAHESHWARI AND K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellant made a composite prayer for voluntary retirement on medical ground subject to the condition that his son may be appointed in his place on compassionate ground, in terms of the Circular dtd.14.06.2006. Whether the respondents were justified in only accepting his prayer for voluntary retirement, without accepting the prayer of compassionate appointment to his son. Service Law – Conditional voluntary retirement application, partially accepted – Impermissibility: Held: A conditional request was made by the appellant to retire him voluntarily instead of offering him an alternative post and that his son be appointed at his place – Meaning thereby, that his request for voluntary retirement may be allowed only if his simultaneous request for compassionate appointment of his son is accepted – Thus, the prayer of voluntary retirement and to grant compassionate appointment were composite – Respondents by segregating the same, only accepted the prayer for voluntary retirement, without accepting appellant’s prayer of compassionate appointment to his son – In view of the ratio of the judgment in Ram Kesh Yadav such action is not justified when a request for voluntary retirement has been made subject to the condition stipulated in the letter to grant the compassionate appointment to his son, it ought to be accepted by the Board compositely, i.e., accepting both the requests, or rejected in toto – Further, applicability of the Circular dtd. 14.06.2006 was independent of the subsequent clarification of the Board’s letter dtd.12.11.2014 explaining medical de-categorization of the employees – Application for grant of voluntary retirement was made on 1536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 16 S.C.R. 18.06.2013, prior to the purported clarificatory Circular dtd.12.11.2014 – Circular dtd.14.06.2006 is independent of other circulars – There is also no reference to the letter of 03.03.2009 in the Circular of 12.11.2014 – Order passed by the West Central Railway, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur rejecting the claim of the appellant again, quashed – Orders passed by the Tribunal in the Original Application and review as also the order of the High Court, set-aside – Compassionate appointment, in the applicable post, be given to the Appellant’s son. [Paras 11, 12, 9, 14 and 15] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Food Corporation of India and Another vs. Ram Kesh Yadav and Another, [2007] 3 SCR 336 : (2007) 9 SCC 531 – relied on. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7956 Of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2018 of the High Court of M.P., Principal Seat at Jabalpur in WP No. 25302 of 2018. Appearances: Nilendra Pratap Singh, Abhishek Raj, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Advs. for the Appellant. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms. Poornima Singh, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Amrish Kumar, Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Swarupma Chaturvedi, Anmol Chandan, Adit Khorana, Shantnu Sharma, Durga Dutt, Raghvendra Srivastava, Advs. for the Respondents. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT ORDER 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 1537 ASHOK KUMAR MEWARI v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 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/RC-1/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 mis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.