Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an appeal by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court that directed the appointment of the son of a retired employee on compassionate grounds. The second respondent, a handling labourer, applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds while requesting that his son be appointed in his place. His application was made after he had exceeded the age limit of 55 years, which led to the rejection of the request for compassionate appointment by FCI. The High Court, however, ruled that FCI was obliged to appoint the son since it had accepted the conditional offer of retirement. The Supreme Court analyzed the conditions of the compassionate appointment scheme and the implications of accepting a conditional offer. It concluded that FCI could not refuse to comply with the condition of appointing the son after having accepted the retirement request. The court emphasized that the issues of voluntary retirement and compassionate appointment are distinct but interlinked when a conditional offer is made. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order for appointment while clarifying that no monetary benefits would be granted for the delay in issuing the appointment offer.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility Criteria - Food Corporation of India Act, 1977 - The court held that the compassionate appointment scheme requires that the employee must not exceed the age of 55 years at the time of application for voluntary retirement. However, the acceptance of a conditional offer of retirement linked to the appointment of a dependant creates an obligation on the employer to comply with the condition. (Paras 7-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Food Corporation of India could refuse compassionate appointment to the son of an employee who retired on medical grounds after exceeding the age limit stipulated in the compassionate appointment scheme.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order for the appointment of the first respondent on compassionate grounds, while clarifying that no monetary benefits would be granted for the delay in issuing the appointment offer.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Voluntary retirement
- Age limit
- Discretionary power
- Conditional offer acceptance
