Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and the respondents regarding the entitlement of the first respondent to a compassionate appointment following the retirement of his father, the second respondent, on medical grounds. The second respondent, an employee of FCI, requested retirement on 16.2.1998 due to health issues, and subsequently sought compassionate appointment for his son. FCI permitted his retirement effective from 30.4.2000, but the first respondent's application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the grounds that the second respondent had crossed the age limit of 55 years at the time of retirement. The respondents filed a writ petition, which was initially dismissed by a Single Judge but later allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court, citing a precedent case. The Supreme Court examined the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment as per FCI's circular, which mandated that applications must be made before the age of 55. The Court noted that the second respondent's retirement request was not conditional upon his son's appointment, distinguishing it from the precedent case. Consequently, the Court restored the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition, concluding that the first respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment due to the ineligibility of the second respondent's retirement application.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility Criteria - Food Corporation of India Act, 1964, Circular dated 3.7.1996 - The scheme provided that an employee seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds must do so before the age of 55 years to be eligible for compassionate appointment. The second respondent sought retirement after crossing the age limit, thus rendering the application for compassionate appointment ineligible. Held that the first respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first respondent is entitled to claim compassionate appointment under the relevant scheme.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's judgment, and restored the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition, concluding that the first respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Voluntary retirement
- Medical grounds
- Age limit
- Discretionary power of authority
