Supreme Court of India
BHAWANI PRASAD SONKARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 200
- Decided
- 11 March 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- D K JAIN
Holding
The appellant is entitled to a compassionate appointment under the 22 September 1995 circular, as the 29 November 2001 circular does not apply, and compassionate appointment is an exceptional, humanitarian measure, not a right.
Summary
The appellant, BHAWANI PRASAD SONKAR, sought a compassionate appointment in the Indian Railways for himself after his father, a Guard Mail/Express, was medically de‑categorised and retired on 30 August 1999 without being offered alternative employment. The Railway Board had issued several circulars governing compassionate appointments, notably the 22 September 1995 circular, the 29 April 1999 circular (requiring alternative employment for de‑categorised staff), and the 29 November 2001 circular (limiting compassionate appointments to totally incapacitated employees who retired after 29 April 1999). The High Court and the Tribunal dismissed the petition relying on the 2001 circular. The Supreme Court held that the 2001 circular did not apply because the father was not offered alternative employment under the 1999 circular, making the 1995 circular the governing scheme, which entitles the appellant to a compassionate appointment in a Class III/IV post. The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is a humanitarian exception, not a right, and must be strictly construed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant directed to be appointed within three months.
Issues considered
- The eligibility of the appellant for a compassionate appointment under the applicable Railway Board circulars.
- Whether the Railway Board circular dated 29 November 2001 supersedes the earlier circulars for a de‑categorised employee who retired after 29 April 1999 without alternative employment.
- Whether the employer complied with the requirement to offer alternative employment under the 29 April 1999 circular.
- Whether compassionate appointment constitutes a statutory right or an exceptional humanitarian measure.
Legislation cited
Subjects
compassionate appointmentrailway service rulesde‑categorisationretirementhumanitarian exceptionpublic service recruitmentArticles 14 and 16service law
Judgment
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 630
•
A BHAWANL PRASAD SONKAR
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5101 of 2005)
MARCH 11, 2011
B
[D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.)
Service Law:
c Grant of compassionate appointment - Object of - Held:
Compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian
grounds and cannot be claimed as a matter of right -
Ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of
open invitation of applications and comparative merit -
0 Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general
rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies,
by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the
character of the service rules - The scheme has to be strictly
construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to
E achieve.
Compassionate appointment - Claim for - Guidelines
governing the appointment - Held: Request for
compassionate employment is to be considered strictly in
accordance with the governing scheme - Application for
F compassionate employment must be preferred without undue
delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period
of time - Appointment on compassionate ground is to meet
the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the
death or medical invalidation of the bread winner while in
G service - It is permissible only to one of the dependants of
the deceased/incapacitated employee, viz. parents, spouse,
son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such
appointments should be only to the lowest category that is
Class Ill and IV posts - On facts, appellant's father was
H 630
• BHAWANI PRASAD SONKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & 631
ORS.
declared as de-categorized employee, not offered alternative A
employment and was made to retire from services on
30.08.1999 on recommendation by the Standing Committee
- In terms of Circular dated 22.09.1995 which contemplates
compassionate employment for the wards of those employees
who have been medically de-categorized, and have retired, B
without being offered an alternative suitable job, the appellant
shall be entitled to employment on compassionate ground.
Appellant's father-Guard Mail/Express in the
Railways, was declared a de-categorized employee and C
on recommendation by the Standing Committee was
retired from service by the order dated 30th August, 1999
without offering him any alternate employment as
stipulated in the service rules. Appellant's father filed
applications before the Railway official seeking
compassionate appointment for his son as a Class IV D
employee but the same were rejected. The appellant filed
an application before the Tribunal which was also
dismissed. The appellant then filed a writ petition seeking
compassionate appointment. The High Court dismissed
the petition on the ground that the employee did not fulfil E
the conditions envisaged in the Railway Board Circular
dated 29th November, 2001. Therefore, the appellant filed
the instant appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court F
HELD: 1.1 The compassionate employment is given
solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to
provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide
over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed
as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent G
is inimical to the Constitutional scheme, and ordinarily
public employment must be strictly on the basis of open
invitation of applications and comparative merit, in
consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R.
A of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible.
Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate
appointment has been recognized as an exception to the
general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain
exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which
B partakes the character of the service rules. That being so,
it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as
the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the
employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be
strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it
c seeks to achieve. [Para 15] [640-B-E]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
(1994) 4 SCC 138; Steel Authority of India Limited vs.
Madhusudan Das and Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 560; V.
Sivamurthy vs. State of Andhra and Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 730
D - referred to.
1.2 While considering a claim for employment on
compassionate ground, the following factors have to be
borne in mind:
E
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in
the absence of rules or regulations issued by the
Government or a public authority. The request Is to
be considered strictly In accordance with the
governing scheme, and no discretion as such Is left
F with any authority to make compassionate
appointment dehors the scheme.
(ii) An application for compassionate employment
must be preferred without undue delay and has to be
G considered within a reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to
meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on
account of the death or medical invalidation of the
bread winner while in service. Therefore,
H
• BHAWANI PRASAD SONKAR v. UNION OF !NOIA & 633
ORS.
compassionate employment cannot be granted as a A
matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of
the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated
employee's family at the time of his death or
incapacity, as the case may be.
8
(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only
to one of the dependants of the deceased/
incapacitated employee, viz. parents, spouse, son or
daughter and not to all relatives, and such
appointments should be only to the lowest category C
that is Class Ill and IV posts.
Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid broad
guidelines governing appointment on compas-
sionate ground, the appellant has made out a case
for such appointment. [Paras 19 and 20] [642-G-H; D
643,A-F]
2.1 It is manifest that in terms of circular dated 29th
November, 2001 only those employees, who have been
totally incapacitated from performing any service after E
29th April, 1999 were entitled to seek compassionate
employment for their wards. In the instant case,
appellant's father retired on 30th August, 1999 i.e. after
29th April, 1999, but was not offered alternative
employment in terms of the Circular dated 29th April, F
1999. [Para 20] [643-F-H]
2.2 The circular/letter dated 29th November, 2001, on
which reliance was placed while rejecting appellant's
claim has to be understood in its correct perspective.
Evidently, it seeks to limit the benefit of compassionate G
employment to only those incapacitated employees who
had been retired after 29th April, 1999, as in case of
employees who were found fit for performing services in
a lower category, Circular. dated 29th April, 1999 would
be applicable, and the Railways was bound to offer H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R.
•
A alternative employment to such employees. It flows
therefrom that after 29th April 1999, those employees who
did not accept the alternative employment, and opted for
voluntary retirement could not be given the benefit of
compassionate employment for their wards. [Para 21)
B [644-A-C]
2.3 In the instant case, the respondents have not
placed any material on record to establish that the
appellant's father who retired on 30th August, 1999 i.e.
after 29th April, 1999 was offered any alternative
C employment in terms of Circular dated 29th April, 1999.
On the contrary, it appears that the Standing Committee
recommended his retirement. Having denied appellant's
father the benefit of Circular dated 29th April 1999, the
respondents cannot claim that Circular dated 29th
D November, 2001 was applicable to appellant's father,
disentitling him from seeking employment on
compassionate ground for his son as he was not totally
incapacitated and had sought voluntary retirement. It is
clear from the retirement order dated 30th August, 1999
E that the appellant's father was retired from service
pursuant to the recommendation of the Standing
Committee. [Para 22) [644-D-F]
2.4 In light of the fact that Circular dated 29th
F November, 2001 was not applicable in the case of
appellant's father, inasmuch as the benefit of the 29th
April, 1999 Circular was not extended to him, and he was
made to retire from service, that the earlier circular dated
22nd September, 1995 is applicable in the instant case.
G Consequently, the appellant would be entitled to
employment on compassionate ground as the said
Circular contemplates compassionate employment for
the wards of those employees who have been medically
de-categorized, and have retired, without being offered_,.
an alternative suitable job. The plea of the respondents
H
• BHAWANI PRASAD SONKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & 635
ORS.
that on being de-categorized, appellant's father had opted A
for voluntary retirement cannot be accepted. The
impugned judgment is set aside and it is directed that the
appellant would be granted employment on
compassionate ground. [Paras 23 and 24] [644-G-H; 645-
A-C]
8
Case Law Reference:
(1994) 4 sec 138 Referred to Para 16
(2008) 15 sec 560 Referred to Para 17
c
(2008) 8 sec 475 Referred to Para 17
(2008) 13 sec 130 Referred to Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL No.
5101 of 2005. D
From the Judgment &Order dated 01.09.2003 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow in
Writ Petition No. 1178 (S/B) of 2003.
D.P. Chaturvedi (for Sheela Goel) for the Appellant. E
Ashok Bhan, C.K. Sharma, A.K. Sharma, Madhurima
Mridual, 8. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
D.K. JAIN, J.: 1. This appeal, by grant of special leave,
is directed against the judgment dated 1st September, 2003
delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad at
Lucknow, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein,
seeking compassionate appointment, has been dismissed on G
the ground that he did not fulfil the conditions envisaged in the
Railway Board Circular dated 29th November, 2001.
2. Appellant's father, Mr. Prahladji Sonkar, was posted as
a Guard Mail/Express, North Eastern Railway at the Lucknow H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R.
A Junction. Respondent No. 2 viz. the Senior Divisional Karmik
Adhikari, North Eastern Railway (N.E.R.), Lucknow directed the
appellant's father to appear before the Medical Board for a
medical examination. Accordingly, appellant's father appeared
before the Medical Board and was declared medically unfit in
B A2, A3, B1 and B2 categories vide certificate dated 6th March,
1998. However, he was found fit in C1 and C2 categories and
was directed to appear for another medical examination after
six months.
3. Accordingly, appellant's father again appeared for a
C medical examination and vide certificate dated 13th July, 1999,
he was declared medically unfit as de-categorized employee.
Nevertheless, he was found fit in category B1 and below.
Thereafter, on 9th August, 1999, appellant's father appeared
before the Standing Committee which decided to retire him
D without offering him any alternate employment, as stipulated in
the service rules. Ultimately, appellant's father was retired from
service vide retirement order dated 30th August, 1999 issued
by respondent No. 3 viz. Divisional Railways Manager
(Karmik), Lucknow, which stated that:
E
"Shri Prahlad Ji Sonkar, Guard Mail/Express in the pay
scale of (5500-9000) at Lucknow Junction who having
been declared as decategorised employee has been
recommended by the standing committee for retirement,
F is retired with immediate effect."
4. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that an
appointment on compassionate ground in the Railways was
governed by Railway Board Circular dated 22nd September,
1995 which provided that:
G
"1. In terms of the instructions contained in para l(iv) of
Board's letter No. E(NG)lll/78/RC-1/1 dated 07.04.1983
and 03.09.1983, appointment on compassionate grounds
is permissible where a Railway employee becomes
H
• BHAWANI PRASAD SONKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & 637
ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.]
'-medically decategorised for the job he is holding and no A
alternative job with the same employee is but it is not
accepted by the employee and he chooses to retire from
service.
2. The question whether appointment on compassionate B
ground can be considered in the case of a medically
decategorised employee who does not wait for the
Administration to identify an alternative job for him but
chooses to retire under consideration of the Board.
3. After careful consideration of the matter, Board have C
decided that in partial modification of Board's letter No.
E(NG)lll/78/RC-1/1 dated 03.09.1983, in the case of
medically decategorised employee, compassionate
appointment of an eligible ward may be considered also
in cases where the employee concerned does not wait for D
the administration to identify an alternative job for him but
chooses to retire and makes a request for (sic) such
appointment."
5. It is also pertinent to mention here that on 29th April, E
1999, the Railway Board issued a circular stating, inter alia, that
in light of the mandate of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995, employees who become incapacitated from holding the
post they were currently holding, but found eligible for retention F
in service in posts corresponding to lower medical category,
shall be offered alternative employment in the posts for which
they are found suitable.
6. Appellant's father moved an application dated 1st
September, 1999, before respondent No. 2 requesting that his G
son be given compassionate appointment as a Class IV
employee. Since there was no response to the said request,
the father of the appellant moved another application, dated
30th December, 1999, before respondent No. 3. On 18th
January, 2000, the Railway Board issued a letter stating that H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R. •
A when an employee is declared as medically unfit to perform the
work which he was performing but is found to be fit to perform
work in a lower category, any request for giving compassionate
employment to such employee's ward would not be considered
if the employee opts for voluntary retirement after being de-
B categorized.
7. Thereafter, on 29th November, 2001, the General
Manager (Personnel), Gorakhpur issued a letter stating that in
case of employees who opted for voluntary retirement after 29th
C April, 1999, the cases of wards of only totally incapacitated
employees would be considered for appointment on
compassionate grounds. In pursuance of the same, respondent
No. 3 issued a letter dated 15th February, 2002 to appellant's
father stating that the application for appointment of his son on
compassionate ground was not found fit for consideration by
D the competent authority.
8. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an Original
Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow
(for short "the Tribunal").
E
9. Vide order dated 31st December, 2002, the Tribunal
dismissed the Original Application, observing thus:
"I have considered the facts of the case and submissions
made on behalf of the parties, and I am of the view that
F the O.A. deserves to be dismissed on the basis of the
circular letter dated 29.11.2001 which had the effect of
superseding the earlier instructions on the subject. Since,
the applicant's father was not totally incapacitated and
retired on 30.8.99, the claim of the applicant for
G compassionate appointment has to be considered in the
light of the instructions of the Railway Board letter dated
29.11.2001 according to which he is not eligible for
compassionate appointment."
10. Still being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition
H
BHAWANI PRASAD SONKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & 639
ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.]
before the High Court. As afore-mentioned, the High Court has, A
vide the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition, stating
that:
"The Tribunal has recorded clear-cut finding to the effect
that the petitioner was not eligible for any compassionate
8
appointment which (sic) could be offered as envisaged in
the policy decision of the Railway Board as indicated in
the Circular dated 29.11.2001, were not satisfied.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case as brought on record in their totality no justifiable
ground for any interference by this Court can be said to
have been made out while exercising the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution." D
11. Meanwhile, the appellant also preferred a review
application before the Tribunal for reviewing its earlier order
dated 31st December, 2002. Vide order dated 5th March,.
2004, the said application was dismissed by the Tribunalon
the ground that the same was barred by limitation. E
12. Hence, the present appeal.
13. Mr. D.P. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment, F
strenuously urged that having retired appellant's father without
offering him a suitable alternative job, despite the fact that he
was found medically fit in category B1, the respondents were
obliged to appoint the appellant in terms of instructions dated
7th April, 1983 and 3rd September, 1983, which were reiterated G
in Circular dated 22nd September, 1995.
14. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that
appellant's father, having opted for voluntary retirement in terms
H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R. •
A of the Railway Board's letter dated 18th January, 2000, could
not seek appointment of his son on compassionate ground.
Learned counsel urged that the appellant has not brought any
material on record to substantiate his plea that his father was
forced to retire.
B
15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment
is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to
provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over
the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter
of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our
C Constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must
be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and
comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is
permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate
D appointment has been recognized as an exception to the
general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain
exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes
the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little
emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be,
E is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an
exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined
only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. We do not propose to
burden this judgment with reference to a long line of decisions
of this Court on the point. However, in order to recapitulate the
F factors to be taken into consideration while examining the claim
for appointment on compassionate ground, we may refer to a
few decisions.
16. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana &
1
G Ors. , while emphasising that a compassionate appointment
cannot be claimed as a matter of course or in posts above
Class Ill and IV, this Court had observed that:
"The whole object of granting compassionate employment
is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.
H 1. (1994) 4 sec 138.
• BHAWANI PRASAD SONKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & 641
ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.]
The object is not to give a member of such family a post A
much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is
further, mere death of an employee in harness does not
entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The
Government or the public authority concerned has to
examine the financial condition of the family of the B
deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the
provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet
the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member
of the family. The posts in Classes Ill and IV are the lowest
posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they c
alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the
object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution
and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of
employment in such lowest posts by making an exception
to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not
0
discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such
dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has
a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz.,
relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or
required to be given by the public authorities for the
purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as E
against the destitute family of the deceased there are
millions of other families which are equally, if not more
destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the
family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the
services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, F
and the change in the status and affairs, of the family
engendered by the erstwhile employment which are
suddenly upturned."
17. Similarly, in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. G
Madhusudan Das & Ors. 2 , this Court has observed that:
"This Court in a large number of decisions has held that
the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be
2. c2oos) 1s sec seo. H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R.
•
A claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the
rules. The criteria laid down therefor viz. that the death of
the sole bread earner of the family, must be established.
It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such
contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of
B equality behind making such a scheme be taken into
consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India mandate that all eligible candidates should be
considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen
vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to
c a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to
the said rule. It is a concession, not a right." (See also:
General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Anju
Jain 3.)
18. In V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 4 ,
D this Court while observing that although appointment in public
service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation
of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution, yet appointments on
compassionate grounds are well recognized exception to the
E general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain
contingencies, highlighted the following two well-recognised
contingencies as exceptions to the general rule :
"(i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the
F sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death
of the breadwinner while in service.
(ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the
crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the
breadwinner."
G
19. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on
compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne
in mind:
3. (2008) s sec 475.
H 4. (2008) 13 sec 730.
• BHAWANI PRASAD SONKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & 643
ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.]
(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the A
absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government
or a public authority. The request is to be considered
strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no
discretion as such is left with any authority to make
compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. B
(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be
preferred without undue delay and has to be considered
within a reasonable period of time.
(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet C
the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the
death or medical invalidation of the bread winner while in
seNice. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be
granted as a matter of course by way of largesse
irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/ D
incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death
or incapacity, as the case may be.
(iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one
of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated E
employee, viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not
to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to
the lowest category that is Class Ill and IV posts.
20. Tested on the touchstone of these broad guidelines
governing appointment on compassionate ground, we are of F
the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for such
appointment. It is manifest that in terms of circular dated 29th
November, 2001 only those employees, who have been totally
incapacitated from performing any seNice after 29th April, 1999
were entitled to seek compassionate employment for their G
wards. In the instant case, appellant's father retired on 30th
August, 1999 i.e. after 29th April, 1999, but was not offered
alternative employment in terms of the Circular dated 29th April,
1999.
H
' '
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 4 S.C.R.
A 21. The circular/letter dated 29th November, 2001, on
which reliance was placed while rejecting appellant's claim has
to be understood in its correct perspective. Evidently, it seeks
to limit the benefit of compassionate employment to only those
incapacitated employees who had been retired after 29th April,
B 1999, as in case of employees who were found fit for performing
services in a lower category, Circular dated 29th April, 1999
would be applicable, and the Railways was bound to offer
alternative employment to such employees. It flows therefrom
that after 29th April 1999, those employees who did not accept
c the alternative employment, and opted for voluntary retirement
could not be given the benefit of compassionate employment
for their wards.
22. In the instant case, the respondents have not placed
any material on record to establish that the appellant's father
D was offered any alternative employment in terms of Circular
dated 29th April, 1999. On the contrary, it appears that the
Standing Committee recommended his retirement. Having
denied appellant's father the benefit of Circular dated 29th April
1999, the respondents cannot claim that Circular dated 29th
E November, 2001 was applicable to appellant's father,
disentitling him from seeking employment on compassionate
ground for his son as he was not totally incapacitated and had
sought voluntary retirement. It is clear from the retirement order
dated 30th August, 1999 that the appellant's father was retired
F from service pursuant to the recommendation of the Standing
Committee.
23. In light of the fact that Circular dated 29th November,
2001 was not applicable in the case of appellant's father,
G inasmuch as the benefit of the 29th April, 1999 Circular was
not extended to him, and he was made to retire from service,
we are of the opinion that the earlier circular dated 22nd'
September, 1995 is applicable in the instant case.
Consequently, the appellant would be entitled to employment
H on compassionate ground as the said Circular contemplates
• BHAWANI PRASAD SONKAR v. UNION OF INDIA & 645
ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.]
compassionate employment for the wards of those employees A
who have been medically de-categorized, and have retired,
without being offered.an alternative suitable job. We are unable
to accept the plea of the respondents that on being de-
categorized, appellant's father had opted ·for voluntary
retirement. B
24. In light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is
allowed; the impugned judgment is set aside and it is directed
that the appellant shall be granted employment on
compassionate ground within three months of the receipt of
copy of this judgment, subject to his complying with other C
eligibility conditions, as applicable on 1st September, 1999.
However, for all intents and purposes, he shall be deemed to
be in service from the date of actual joining.
25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall D
be no order as to costs.
N.J. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "compassionate appointment"Sign in to search