2007 (2) TMI 710 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the rejection of compassionate appointment based on age criteria.
2. Conditional offer of voluntary retirement and its acceptance.
3. Discretionary nature of compassionate appointments under the scheme.

Summary:

1. Validity of the rejection of compassionate appointment based on age criteria:
The appellant, Food Corporation of India (FCI), introduced a scheme for granting compassionate appointments to dependants of departmental workers who died in service or retired on medical grounds. The scheme, updated on 3.7.1996, stipulated that the worker should seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds before completing the age of 55 years. The second respondent applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds on 26.4.1999, at the age of 55 years, 2 months, and 20 days, requesting compassionate appointment for his son. FCI rejected the request for compassionate appointment on the grounds that the second respondent had crossed the age limit of 55 years, as per the scheme. The Supreme Court held that an employer cannot be directed to act contrary to the terms of its policy governing compassionate appointments and that the 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.

2. Conditional offer of voluntary retirement and its acceptance:
The second respondent's application was a composite one, seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds, conditional upon the appointment of his son. FCI accepted the voluntary retirement without addressing the conditional nature of the offer. The Supreme Court noted that when an offer is conditional, the offeree (FCI) has the choice to accept or reject the entire offer, including the condition. By accepting the voluntary retirement without addressing the condition, FCI implicitly accepted the entire conditional offer, including the compassionate appointment of the son. The Court held that FCI could not refuse to comply with the condition after accepting the offer.

3. Discretionary nature of compassionate appointments under the scheme:
The scheme designated the Senior Regional Manager/Regional Manager as the competent authority and made it clear that compassionate appointment is discretionary. The Supreme Court acknowledged that even if all conditions prescribed in the scheme are fulfilled, there is no 'right' to appointment, and it remains a matter of discretion for the competent authority. However, in this case, the Court found that FCI's acceptance of the conditional offer implied an obligation to appoint the son, as the conditional offer was accepted in its entirety. The Court upheld the High Court's direction to appoint the first respondent, noting that FCI did not dispute the eligibility or suitability of the first respondent for the post of handling labour, nor did it contend that there was no vacancy.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that FCI, having accepted the conditional offer of voluntary retirement, could not refuse the compassionate appointment of the son. The Court granted FCI two months to appoint the first respondent as per the High Court's order, with no entitlement to monetary or other benefits for the delay in issuing the offer of appointment.