FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus RAM KESH YADAV AND ANR

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 336 · Decided: 27-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
..... 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
~ 
RAM KESH Y ADA V AND ANR 
FEBRUARY 27, 2007 
B 
[TARUNCHATTERJEEANDR.V.RAVEENDRAN,JJ.] 
Service Law-Appointment-Compassionate appointment-Entitlement 
of -Employee voluntarily retired from service his but son was denied 
J. 
c 
compassionate appointment since employee crossed age limit of 55 years 
when applied for retirement-Held: Compassionate appointment cannot be 
directed de hors the policy-But application was composite one, for 
conditional volurdary retirement on medical grounds subject to appointment 
of son in his place -Employer having accepted the offer unconditionally and 
retired the employee from service, it was implied that it accepted the 
D conditional offer in entirety-It could not avoid performance of condition 
subject to which offer was made-Direction for grant of employment by High 
Court upheld. 
... 
In terms of the Circular benefit of compassionate appointment was 
extended to the dependants of departmental workers, who sought voluntary 
E retirement on medical grounds at their own request, subject to certain 
conditions. Second Respondent-Departmental worker in appellant company, 
before attaining the age of superannuation made an application seeking 
compassionate appointment of his son on his voluntary retirement on medical 
grounds. At that time his age was more than 55 years. Respondent was retired 
F from service. However, the request for the compassionate appointment was 
rejected since second respondent was aged more than 55 years on the date of 
filing the application as against the maximum age of 55 years prescribed under 
· 
... -
the scheme. Respondents filed writ petition for quashing the order and sought 
direction to the appellant to appoint the first respondent-son in place of second 
respondent who had retired on medical grounds. Single Judge of High Court 
G dismissed the writ petition holding that the first respondent was not entitled 
to compassionate appointment, as the second respondent had already 
completed the age of55 years when he made the application. Respondent filed 
, 
an appeal. Division Bench allowed the same holding that once appellant accepted 
the request of an employee for retirement on medical grounds under the 
H 
336 
FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA v. RAM KESH Y ADAV 
33 7 
compassionate appointment scheme, it was obliged to give appointment to the A 
dependant of such employee and his request cannot be turned down on any 
technical ground. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. An employer cannot be directed to act contrary to the terms B 
of its policy governing compassionate appointments. Nor can compassi!lnate 
appointment be directed de hors the policy. !Para 711343-EI 
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar, 
11994) 2 sec 718, referred to. 
1.2. The compassionate appointment scheme clearly bars compassionate 
appointment to the dependant of an employee who seeks voluntary retirement 
on medical grounds, after attaining the age of 55 years. There is a logical 
and valid object in providing that the benefit of compassionate appointment 
c 
for a dependant of an employee voluntarily retiring on medical grounds, will D 
be available only where the employee seeks such retirement before completing 
55 years. But for such a condition, there will be a tendency on the part of 
employees nearing the age of superannuation, to take advantage of the scheme 
). 
and seek voluntary retirement at the fag end of their service, on medical 
:; 
grounds, and thereby virtually creating employment by 'succession'. It is not 
permissible for the court to relax the said condition relating to age of the E 
employee. Whenever a cut off date or age is prescribed, it is bound to cause 
hardship in marginal cases, but that is no ground to hold the provision as 
directory and not mandatory. (Para 71 (343-A, F, G, H,] 
1.3. The issue of voluntary retirement of an employee on medical grounds 
and the issue of compassionate appointment to a dependent of such retired F 
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 appointment ofa dependant is not an 
automatic consequence of acceptance of voluntary retirement Firstly, all the G 
conditions prescribed in the Scheme sh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.