Summary
The Supreme Court directed compassionate appointment of a railway employee’s son after the Railways accepted the employee’s voluntary retirement while ignoring the express condition that his son be appointed. The composite request could not be split in that manner without informing the employee and allowing him to reconsider. The renewed rejection also failed to address the Court’s governing precedent.
Issues
- Whether the Railways could accept voluntary retirement while rejecting the compassionate-appointment condition attached to it.
- Whether the later medical-decategorisation clarification justified refusing the composite request made earlier.
Provisions considered
- Paragraphs 4 and 5, Railway Board Circular dated 14 June 2006The compassionate-appointment instructions for partially medically decategorised staff were considered independently of the later clarification. The connection and publicity of the 2009 letter relied on late in the litigation were not satisfactorily established.
Held
- The employee’s application expressly linked voluntary retirement to appointment of his son. An employer receiving such an offer may accept it as a whole, reject it, or inform the employee that the appointment condition cannot be met and seek an unconditional retirement request. It cannot accept retirement alone and deprive the employee of the opportunity to withdraw the conditional offer.
- The Railways neither rejected the conditional application nor informed the employee that appointment was unavailable and retirement must be sought independently. Applying Food Corporation of India v. Ram Kesh Yadav, its selective acceptance was unjustified.
- The Court treated the 2006 circular as independently applicable on this record. The 2014 clarification postdated the employee’s request; the earlier 2009 letter had not been placed before the Tribunal or High Court, was not referred to in the 2014 circular, and its connection with the 2006 instructions and publicity were unexplained.
- Even after an opportunity to reconsider, the Railways repeated its circular-based rejection without addressing the composite request and the binding precedent. That decision showed non-application of mind and could not stand.
Result
Appeal allowed. Tribunal orders in the original application and review, the High Court order and the Railways’ renewed rejection were set aside. Compassionate appointment of Mukesh Mewari to the applicable post directed within four weeks of communication of the order; no order as to costs.