The Union Of India vs Aspak Son Of Late Shri Noor ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2976 Raj/2

      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

(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.

(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"

(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.

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)