HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6828/2021
1. The Union of India, through General Manager, West
Central Zone, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (M.P.).
2. Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Kota
Division, Kota (Rajasthan).
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, West Central Railway,
Kota Division, Kota (Rajasthan).
----Non-Applicants/Petitioners
Versus
Aspak Son of Late Shri Noor Mohammad, Aged about 53 years,
resident of Village Kutakpur, Post Sanet, Tehsil Hindaun, District
Karauli, Last employed as Senior Trolley-Man, Under Senior
Section Engineer (TRD), West Central Railway, Gangapur City
and Aspirant for appointment of his son due to medically
decategorization and further retirement.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Shri S.N. Meena
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment
16/07/2021
(PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.3.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for brevity-`the Tribunal') whereby the Original Application No.261/2016 (for brevity-`the OA') filed by the respondent-applicant (for brevity-`the applicant') seeking compassionate appointment for his son, has been allowed.
The facts in brief are that the applicant was a substantive employee working as Senior Trolley Man with the appellants. Vide application dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure-R/1), he applied for (Downloaded on 20/07/2021 at 09:44:59 PM) (2 of 5) [CW-6828/2021] voluntary retirement as per option under para 4(b) of the Circular dated 14.6.2006 issued by the appellants inasmuch as he was medically decategorised. His application was accepted by the appellants vide order dated 30.11.2011. The appellant vide order dated 17.3.2016 rejected claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment of his son as he was decategorised for appointment in the same nature of job. The learned Tribunal vide order impugned dated 19.3.2021 while allowing OA filed by the applicant, quashed the order dated 17.3.2016 and directed the appellants to consider the case of the applicant and to provide appointment to his son as per option accepted by him for voluntary retirement with all consequential benefits.
Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellants contended that as per Circular dated 18.1.2000 in the case of medical de-categorisation wherein an employee becomes medically unfit for the post held at present, but, is fit to perform the duties of an alternative suitable post in lower medical category, the request for appointment on compassionate ground to an eligible ward will not be admissible even if the employee chooses to retire voluntarily on his being declared medically de- categorised. He submitted that the applicant was held to be "fit in original category with permanent change of job not involving heavy work" and he was called before the screening committee for alternative job; but, he submitted the application dated 13.10.2010 seeking voluntary retirement and hence, his ward was not entitled for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel also relied upon the Circulars dated 12.11.2014 and 18.12.2014 in support of his submissions. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order dated 19.3.2021.
(Downloaded on 20/07/2021 at 09:44:59 PM)
(3 of 5) [CW-6828/2021] Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
The application dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure-R/1) moved by the respondent reveals that he sought voluntary retirement under para 4(d) of the Circular dated 14.6.2006 issued by the Railway Board on his medical decategorisation when his 11 years and 7 months' service was still left. Para 4(b) of the Circular reads as under:
"4. Pursuant to the demand raised by staff side the issue has been deliberated upon at length in the full Board Meeting and it has been decided that compassionate ground appointment to the wife/wards/dependants of partially medically de-categorised staff who seeks voluntary retirement may be given subject to the following provisions:-
(b) Such an appointment should only be given in case of employees who are declared partially decategorised at a time when they have atleast 5 years or more service left."
His request was accepted by the appellants vide order dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure-A2). The relevant extract of which is being reproduced as under:
"if'pe e/; jsyos dk;kZy;] e.My jsy izcU/kd&dksVk la[;k% [email protected],[email protected]@[email protected] Hkkx&5 fnukad% 30-11-2011 dk;kZy; vkns'k fo"k;%& fodksfV--r deZpkfj;ksa ds LosfPNd lsokfuo`fr ds Øe esa fo|qr foHkkx] VhvkjMh foax&dksVk eaMyA lanHkZ%^& deZpkjh dk vkosnu fnukad 13-10-2011 Jh v'kQkd o VªkSyh eSu v/khu ,l,lbZ ¼VhvkjMh½ xaxkiqj flVh dks ofj-e-fp-vf/k- dksVk ds i= la-,[email protected]@[email protected]@A fnukad 13-10-2011 ds }kjk fpfdRlk vk/kkj ij fodksfV--r fd;k x;k gSA deZpkjh us fodYi ds vk/kkj ij mlds iq= dsk jsyos esa fu;qfDr rFkk Lo;a dh LosfPNd lsokfuo`fr ekaxh gS] ftls l{ke vf/kdkjh us Lohd`fr iznku dj nh gSA vr% deZpkjh dks fodYi ds vk/kkj ij fn- 02-12-2011 ls LosfPNd vk/kkj ij lsokfuo`Rr fd;k tkrk gSA"(Downloaded on 20/07/2021 at 09:44:59 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-6828/2021] Thus, the order dated 30.11.2011 leaves no room for doubt that option of the applicant for voluntary retirement under para 4(b) was accepted with approval from the competent authority conscious of the fact that he has sought appointment of his son in his place. A perusal of the Circular dated 14.6.2006 reveals that the provision of para 4(b) was inserted pursuant to the demand raised by the staff side by the Railway Board in its full Board Meeting. In view thereof, the reliance placed by the appellants on the Circular dated 18.1.2000 which stood superseded by the notification dated 14.6.2006 to deny compassionate appointment to the ward of the applicant is misplaced. Similarly, the Circulars dated 12.11.2014 and 18.12.2014 cannot be applied in the present case to deny appointment to the ward of the applicant inasmuch as at the relevant time i.e. in the year 2011 when option of the applicant for voluntary retirement was accepted, the same did not exist.
There is another important aspect of the matter. The request of the applicant for voluntary retirement under para 4(b) of the Circular dated 14.6.2000 was conditional as its acceptance entitled his ward for appointment in his place; otherwise, a service tenure of about 11 years and 7 months was still left before he was to attain the age of superannuation. Instead of rejecting the conditional request of the applicant, the appellants accepted the request vide letter dated 30.11.2011 specifically mentioning therein that he was medically decategorised and has opted for voluntary retirement seeking appointment of his ward which was approved by the competent authority and hence, the appellants could not deny appointment of his ward on the principle of promissory estoppel.
(Downloaded on 20/07/2021 at 09:44:59 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-6828/2021] Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the order impugned dated 19.3.2021 warranting interference by this Court in its equitable jurisdiction and hence the writ petition is dismissed devoid of merit. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J (SANGEET LODHA),J RAVI SHARMA /11 (Downloaded on 20/07/2021 at 09:44:59 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)