2011 (3) TMI 1750 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for compassionate appointment.
2. Applicability of Railway Board Circulars.
3. Compliance with the Persons with Disabilities Act.
4. Validity of the Tribunal and High Court's decisions.

Summary:

1. Eligibility for Compassionate Appointment:
The appellant sought compassionate appointment following his father's retirement due to medical decategorization. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the appellant did not fulfill the conditions in the Railway Board Circular dated 29th November, 2001.

2. Applicability of Railway Board Circulars:
The appellant's father was declared medically unfit in certain categories but fit in others. Despite this, he was retired without being offered alternative employment. The appellant argued that the respondents were obliged to appoint him under the instructions dated 7th April, 1983, and 3rd September, 1983, reiterated in the Circular dated 22nd September, 1995. The respondents contended that the appellant's father opted for voluntary retirement under the Railway Board's letter dated 18th January, 2000, which precluded compassionate appointment.

3. Compliance with the Persons with Disabilities Act:
The Railway Board Circular dated 29th April, 1999, mandated offering alternative employment to employees incapacitated from holding their current posts but fit for lower categories. The appellant's father was not offered such employment, and the respondents failed to provide material evidence that he was offered alternative employment as per the Circular dated 29th April, 1999.

4. Validity of the Tribunal and High Court's Decisions:
The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's Original Application based on the Circular dated 29th November, 2001, which superseded earlier instructions. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that the appellant was not eligible for compassionate appointment under the policy decision of the Railway Board. The Supreme Court found that the Circular dated 29th November, 2001, was not applicable to the appellant's father, as he was not offered alternative employment under the Circular dated 29th April, 1999. Therefore, the earlier Circular dated 22nd September, 1995, applied, entitling the appellant to compassionate appointment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and directed that the appellant be granted employment on compassionate grounds within three months, subject to other eligibility conditions as of 1st September, 1999. The appellant would be deemed to be in service from the date of actual joining. No order as to costs was made.