Holding

Having accepted the employee’s conditional offer of voluntary retirement, FCI could not refuse to comply with the condition of appointing the son, and the direction for appointment was upheld.

Summary

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) introduced a compassionate appointment scheme that allows dependants of workers who voluntarily retire on medical grounds to be appointed, provided the employee is below 55 years of age. The second respondent, a departmental worker, submitted a composite application on 26‑April‑1999 seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds conditional upon his son’s appointment, even though he was already over 55. FCI accepted the retirement unconditionally and later refused the son’s appointment, citing the age limit, leading to a writ petition. The High Court directed FCI to appoint the son, and on appeal the Supreme Court examined whether an employer can be compelled to act contrary to its scheme and whether acceptance of a conditional offer binds the employer to the condition. The Court held that once FCI accepted the conditional offer, it could not later reject the condition, and therefore upheld the direction for appointment, while reaffirming that the age limit remains enforceable for unlinked offers. The appeal was dismissed, with FCI ordered to appoint the son within two months.

Issues considered

Whether an employer can be directed to grant compassionate appointment in violation of the scheme’s age limit of 55 years.
Whether acceptance of a conditional voluntary retirement offer obliges the employer to fulfil the condition of appointing the dependant.
Whether the issues of voluntary retirement on medical grounds and compassionate appointment are distinct and may be decided independently.
Whether a mandamus directing appointment is appropriate given the discretionary nature of compassionate appointments.

Subjects

compassionate appointmentvoluntary retirementmedical groundsconditional offeremployer policyage limitservice lawemployment discretion

Judgment

A FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.
.....
v. ~
RAM KESH YADA V AND ANR

FEBRUARY 27, 2007

B [TARUNCHATTERJEEANDR.V.RAVEENDRAN,JJ.]

Service Law-Appointment-Compassionate appointment-Entitlement
J.
of -Employee voluntarily retired from service his but son was denied
compassionate appointment since employee crossed age limit of 55 years
c when applied for retirement-Held: Compassionate appointment cannot be
directed de hors the policy-But application was composite one, for
conditional volurdary retirement on medical grounds subject to appointment
of son in his place -Employer having accepted the offer unconditionally and
retired the employee from service, it was implied that it accepted the
D conditional offer in entirety-It could not avoid performance of condition
subject to which offer was made-Direction for grant of employment by High
Court upheld.
...
In terms of the Circular benefit of compassionate appointment was
extended to the dependants of departmental workers, who sought voluntary
E retirement on medical grounds at their own request, subject to certain
conditions. Second Respondent-Departmental worker in appellant company,
before attaining the age of superannuation made an application seeking
compassionate appointment of his son on his voluntary retirement on medical
grounds. At that time his age was more than 55 years. Respondent was retired
from service. However, the request for the compassionate appointment was
F
rejected since second respondent was aged more than 55 years on the date of
filing the application as against the maximum age of 55 years prescribed under ·...-
the scheme. Respondents filed writ petition for quashing the order and sought
direction to the appellant to appoint the first respondent-son in place of second
respondent who had retired on medical grounds. Single Judge of High Court
G dismissed the writ petition holding that the first respondent was not entitled
to compassionate appointment, as the second respondent had already
completed the age of55 years when he made the application. Respondent filed
an appeal. Division Bench allowed the same holding that once appellant accepted
,
the request of an employee for retirement on medical grounds under the
H 336
FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA v. RAM KESH YADAV 33 7
compassionate appointment scheme, it was obliged to give appointment to the A
dependant of such employee and his request cannot be turned down on any
technical ground. Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. An employer cannot be directed to act contrary to the terms B
of its policy governing compassionate appointments. Nor can compassi!lnate
appointment be directed de hors the policy. !Para 711343-EI

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar,
11994) 2 sec 718, referred to.
c
1.2. The compassionate appointment 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. There is a logical
and valid object in providing that the benefit of compassionate appointment
for a dependant of an employee voluntarily retiring on medical grounds, will D
be available only where the employee seeks such retirement before completing
55 years. But for such a condition, there will be a tendency on the part of
employees nearing the age of superannuation, to take advantage of the scheme
). and seek voluntary retirement at the fag end of their service, on medical
:; grounds, and thereby virtually creating employment by 'succession'. It is not
permissible for the court to relax the said condition relating to age of the E
employee. Whenever a cut off date or age is prescribed, it is bound to cause
hardship in marginal cases, but that is no ground to hold the provision as
directory and not mandatory. (Para 71 (343-A, F, G, H,]

1.3. The issue of voluntary retirement of an employee on medical grounds
and the issue of compassionate appointment to a dependent of such retired F
employee are independent and distinct issues. An application for voluntary
retirement. has to be made first. Only when it is accepted and the employee is
retired, an application for appointment of a dependant on compassionate
grounds can be made. Compassionate appointment ofa dependant is not an
automatic consequence of acceptance of voluntary retirement Firstly, all the G
conditions prescribed in the Scheme should be fulfilled. Even if all conditions
as per guidelines are fulfilled, there is no 'right' to appointment. It is still a
matter of discretion of the competent authority, who may reject the request if
there is no vacancy or if the circumstances and conditions of the family of
the medically retired worker do not warrant grant of compassionate
appointment to a dependant (Para 8) (344-8, Cl H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 3 S.C.R.

A 1.4. The second respondent's application was a composite application
for 1:onditional voluntary retirement on medical grounds, subject to
appointment of his son in his place. The application specifically stated that he
desired to go on retirement on medical grounds if his son was provided with
employment in his place. The second Respondent had thus clearly indicated
B that if employment on compassionate ground was not provided to his son, he
was not interested in pursuing his request for retirement on medical grounds.
FCI ought to have informed the employee that he could not make such a
conditional offer of retirement contrary to the scheme. But for reasons best
known to itself, FCI did not choose to reject the conditional offer, but
unconditionally accepted the conditional offer. [Para 9) (344-E, F, G)
c 1.5. When an offer is conditional, the offeree has the choice of either
accepting the conditional offer, or rejecting the conditional offer, or making
a counter offer. But what the offeree cannot do, when an offer is conditional,
is to accept a part of the offer which results in performance by the offeror
and then reject the condition subject to which the offer is made. (Para 1OJ
D
1.6. When FCI accepted the offer unconditionally and retired the second
respondent from service, it was implied that it accepted the conditional offer
in entirety, that is the offer made (voluntary retirement) as also the condition
subject to which the offer was made (appointment of his dependant son on
E compassionate grounds). In his application, the second respondent made it
clear that he desired to retire voluntarily on medical grounds only if his son
(first respondent herein) was provided with employment. lfFCI felt that such
a conditional application was contrary to the Scheme or not warranted, it ought
tn have rejected the application. Alternatively, it ought have informed the
employee that the compassionate appointment could not be given to his son
F because he (the employee) had already completed 55 years of age and that it
will consider his request for retirement on medical grounds delinking the
said issue of retirement, from the request for compassionate appointment. In
that event, the employee would have had the option to withdraw his offer itself.
Having denied him the opportunity to withdraw the offer, and having retired
G him by accepting the conditional offer, FCI cannot refuse to comply with the
condition subject to which the offer was made. (Para 11 J (345-E, F, G, H, Al

1.7. An employee is entitled to continue in service till the age of
superannuation. Even if he is having some medical ailment, due to economic
reasons, he may choose to continue up to 60 years. If the employer found that
H the employee was physically unfit to carry on his work, the employer was at
FOODCORPN.OF INDIA v. RAM KESH YADAV 339

liberty to refer his case to a Medical Board and on the basis of its opinion, A
compulsorily retire the employee on medical grounds. A compulsory
~
• retirement by the employer on medical grounds is different from a voluntary
retirement by the employee on medical grounds. In fact the scheme earlier
provided for compassionate appointment of a dependant, only when an employee
was (compulsorily) retired by the employer, on medical grounds. The scheme
was expanded on 3.7.1996, to provide for compassionate appointment for a
B
dependant, when an employee voluntarily retired on medical grounds.
!Para 1211346-B, C, DI

-l 1.8. FCI having accepted the offer and accepted performance of the offer
by the second Respondent, cannot avoid performance of the condition subject
to which the offer was made. Nothing prevented FCI from rejecting the
c
application of the employee outright, or inform the employee before accepting
the offer of voluntary retirement that it could not accept the condition, so that
the employee would have had the option to withdraw the offer itself. !Para 141
1346-A, G, HI
D
1.9. The denial of employment was not on the ground that the competent
authority on considering the relevant circumstances, found that it was not a
tit case for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is true that in the normal
).
course, if the employee's son was found eligible for employment on
:, compassionate grounds, the court ought to have directed consideration of his
case in terms of the scheme instead of issuing a mandamus to give employment. E
But the conditional offer having been accepted, FCI could not thereafter refuse
appointment. It is found that FCI did not dispute the fact that the first
respondent was eligible and suitable for the post of handling labour. Nor did
FCf contend that there was no vacancy. The employee had retired in 2000.
For nearly 7 years, his son has been denied employment. On the peculiar
F
facts, it is not appropriate to interfere with the direction given by the High
Court to appoint the first respondent, though for different reasons. However,
-y
.__ neither the retired employee nor his son will, be entitled to claim any monetary
or other benefits on the ground of delay in issuing the offer of appointment.
(Paras 15 and 17( (347-C-E-G(
G
I.IO. The direction for grant of employment is upheld only because of
the acceptance of an inter-linked conditional offer. Where the offer to
.
'
voluntarily retire and request for compassionate appointment are not inter-
linked or conditional, FCI would be justified in considering and deciding each
request independently, even if both requests are made in the same letter or
application. (Para 16( (347-FI H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3451 of 2006.

From the Judgment and final Order dated 19.9.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 615 of 2005.

Ajit Pudussery for the Appellants.
B
Bharat Sangal, R.R. Kumar, Samyadip Chatterji and Suchita Sharma for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by j-

C RA VEENDRAN, J. I. This appeal by special leave is filed against the
judgment dated 19.9.2005 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
615 of2005 affirming the judgment dated 29.3.2005 of a learned Single Judge
in CMWP No. 13032 of2003.

2. The Appellant - Food Corporation oflndia (for short 'FCI'), introduced
D a scheme for granting compassionate appointment to dependants of
departmental workers, who died while in service or who were retired by FCI
on medical grounds, vide Circular dated 2.2.1977. By a subsequent circular
dated 3.7.1996, the said benefit of compassionate appointment was extended
to dependants of departmental workers who sought voluntary retirement on
E medical grounds at their own request, subject to the conditions stipulated in
the said circular. The conditions, in brief, are:

(a) The worker should seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds
before completing the age of 55 years.
(b) Such request should be accompanied by a medical certificate
F issued by an Authorised Medical Officer, subject to verification
by FCI.
....,_
(c) The benefit of compassionate appointment shall be given only to
a male dependant, (of the age group between I 8 years and 30
years), that too in the handling labour category, subject to an
G Authorised Medical Officer confirming the medical fitness of
such dependant to handle/carry bags of big size.
(d) The application for compassionate appointment shall be made in ;
the prescribed form, within three months from the date of
retirement.
H
FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA v. RAM KESH YADAV [RA YEEND RAN. J.] 341

(e) Compassionate appointment will be given only in deserving cases, A
that is, where there is no earning member in the family of the
retired worker, or where it is found that the financial benefits
which are available to the worker on retirement will not be
sufficient to meet the needs for running the family.

The Scheme dP.signated the Senior Regional Manager/Regional Manager as B
the competent authority and made it clear that compassionate appointment is
discretionary. The Scheme stated :

-t "Notwithstanding anything contained in the above, the compassionate
ground appointment is not as a matter of right but purely at the
discretion of the competent authority taking into the account the c
circumstances and conditions of the family of the medically retired
workers and also subject to availability of the vacancy."

3. The Second Respondent was working as a Departmental worker
(Handling Labour) in the Azamgarh Food Storage Depot of the appellant. The
date of birth of second respondent was 6.2.1944. In the usual course, he D
would have attained the age of superannuation on 6.2.2004. The second
respondent made a composite application dated 26.4.1999 seeking
>- compassionate appointment to his son (the first respondent) on his voluntary
-i, retirement on medical grounds, stating thus :

"Sub: Appointment of my son Sri Ram Kesh in consideration of my
E
retirement on medical ground

....... as I am unable to do handling work of loading due to inability of
carrying bags, I desire to go on retirement on medical ground, if my
above-named son would be provided with an employment in my
F
place as handling labour. Further I am the only earning member of
--¥ my family and on my retirement if none of my family is employed, the
entire family would be put to suffer hardship ...... Kindly allow me to
go on retirement on medical ground and provide employment to my
above named son in my place as handling labour....... "
G
[Emphasis supplied]

,• As on the date of the said application (26.4.1999), his age was 55 years 2
months and 20 days. In pursuance of the said application, the second
respondent was retired from service as on 31. 7.2000, vide office order dated
29.7.2000. Before that date, the Azamgarh Branch ofFCI had also forwarded H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 3 S.C.R.

A a proposal dated 26.5.2000 to its Lucknow Regional Office, for appointing the -
second respondent's son (first respondent) on compassionate grounds. The
Regional Office rejected the said request for compassionate appointment vide
letter dated 19/21.12.2001 addressed to the Azamgarh Office on the ground
that second respondent was aged 55 years 2 months and 20 days as on the
B date of his application as against the maximum age of 55 years prescribed
under the scheme. As the said rejection was not communicated to the
respondents, they went on approaching the Azamgarh Office for first
Respondent's appointment. Ultimately, they took up the matter through the
Vice-President of the Employees' Union on 10.3.2003. Only thereafter, that is
on 21.3.2003, a copy of the said order of rejection dated 19/21.12.2001 was
C made available to the Respondents. Immediately, the respondents filed CMWP
No. 13032 of 2003 for quashing the order dated 19/21.12.2001 and seeking a
direction to FCI to appoint the first respondent to the post of handling labour
in place of second respondent who had retired on medical grounds.

4. The said writ petition was resisted by FCI on the ground that the first
D respondent was not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds, as
the second respondent had already crossed the age limit of 55 years when
he made the application on 26.4.1999.

5. A learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the FCI and held
that the first respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment, as
E the second respondent had already completed the age of 55 years when he
made the application. Consequently, the writ petition was rejected on 29.3.2005.
The appeal filed by the respondents against the said order was allowed by
a Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 19.9.2005. The Division
Bench was of the view that once FCI accepted the request of an employee
F for retirement on medical grounds under the compassionate appointment
scheme, it was obliged to give appointment to the dependant of such employee
and his request cannot be turned down on any technical ground. It followed
the decision of another Division Bench (Nizamuddin v. The District Manager,
FCI Special Appeal No. 579/2005 decided on 11.5.2005) which took the view
that FCl cannot take an inconsistent stand by 'allowing medical retirement for
G the father, and disallowing compassionate appointment for the son'. The said
order is challenged by FCl in this appeal by special leave.

6. The appellant contends that under the scheme, appointment of a
dependant on compassionate grounds can be sought only where a worker
H seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds, has not crossed the age
FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA v. RAM KESH YADAV [RA VEENDRAN, .I.) 343
limit of 55 years, in addition to fulfilling the other conditions of the scheme. A
As the second respondent had exceeded the said age limit of 55 years, by
~
,..; 2 months and 20 days, as on the date of the application for voluntary
retirement, the Appellant had to refuse compassionate appointment to first
Respondent. It is contended that a direction to appoint first respondent on
compassionate grounds, has the effect of requiring the employer to act contrary
to its rules (scheme), which is impermissible. The appellant also contends that B
the issue relating to retirement on medical grounds and the issue relating to
compassionate appointment of a dependent, are distinct and different issues.
It is submitted that if the conditions necessary for retirement on medical
grounds are found to exist, the employee will be permitted to retire on medical
grounds. The request for compassionate appointment would, thereafter, be c
examined separately and independently to find out whether the dependant
was eligible and the conditions for such appointment are satisfied. It is
pointed out that even if the retired employee and his dependant fulfilled all
the conditions, compassionate appointment could not be claimed as a matter
of right and the competent authority still had the discretion either to grant
or refuse compassionate appointment, taking into account the circumstance D
and condition of the family of the retired employee and the availability of
vacancy.

>-- 7. There is no doubt that an employer cannot be directed to act contrary
~ to the tenns of its policy governing compassionate appointments. Nor can
E
compassionate appointment be directed de hors the policy. In Life Insurance
Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar, [I 994] 2 SCC 718, this
Court stressed the need to examine the terms of the Rules/Scheme governing
compassionate -appointments and ensure that the claim satisfied the
requirements before directing compassionate appointment. In this case, the
scheme clearly bars compassionate appointment to the dependant of an F
employee who seeks voluntary retirement on medical grounds, after attaining
the age of 55 years. There is a logical and valid object in providing that the
--'r' benefit of compassionate appointment for a dependant of an employee
voluntarily retiring on medical grounds, will be available only where the
employee seeks such retirement before completing 55 years. But for such a
condition, there will be a tendency on the part of employees nearing the age
G
of superannuation, to take advantage of the scheme and seek voluntary
retirement at the fag end of their service, on medical grounds, and thereby
... virtually creating employment by 'succession'. It is not permissible for the
'
court to relax the said condition relating to age of the employee. Whenever
H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.
A a cut off date or age is prescribed, it is bound to cause hardship in marginal
cases, but that is no ground to hold the provision as directory and not
mandatory.

8. As rightly contended by FCI, the issue of voluntary retirement of an
employee on medical grounds and the issue of compassionate appointment
B to a dependent of such retired employee are independent and distinct issues.
An application for voluntary retirement has to be made first. Only when it is
accepted and the employee is retired, an application for appointment of a
dependant on compassionate grounds can be made. Compassionate
appointment of a dependant is not an automatic consequence of acceptance
C of voluntary retirement. Firstly, all the conditions prescribed in the Scheme
dated 3.7.1996 should be fulfilled. Even if all conditions as per guidelines are
fulfilled, there is no 'right' to appointment. It is still a matter of discretion of
the competent authority, who may reject the request if there is no vacancy
or if the circumstances and conditions of the family of the medically retired
worker do not wairant grant of compassionate appointment to a dependant.
D Therefore, the observation of the High Court in Nizamuddin (supra) that
allowing the request of the employee for voluntary retirement on medical
grounds and rejecting the application of the dependant for compassionate
appointment on the ground of non-fulfilment of conditions of scheme would
amount to taking inconsistent stands, is clearly erroneous.

E 9. But on facts, this case is different. The second respondent's
application dated 26.4.1999 was a composite application for conditional
voluntary retirement on medical grounds, subject to appointment of his son
in his place. The application specifically stated that he desired to go on
retirement on medical grounds if his son was provided with employment in
F his place. The second Respondent had thus clearly indicated that if employment
on compassionate ground was not provided to his son, he was not interested
in pursuing his request for retirement on medical grounds. FCI ought to have
informed the employee that he could not make such a conditional offer of
retirement contrary to the scheme. But for reasons best known to itself, FCI
did not choose to reject the conditional offer, but unconditionally accepted
G the conditional offer. There lies the catch.

10. When an offer is conditional, the offeree has the choice of either
accepting the conditional offer, or rejecting the conditional offer, or making
a counter offer. But what the offeree cannot do, when an offer is conditional,
is to accept a part of the offer which results in performance by the offeror
H
FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA v. RAM KESH YADAV [RAVEENDRAN. J.] 345

and then reject the condition subject to which the offer is made. A

, " 11. In the context of second Respondent's conditional offer of voluntary
retirement contained in the letter dated 26.4.1999, FCI had, therefore, the
following options:

(a) Reject the request for voluntary retirement on the ground that a B
conditional offer was contrary to the Scheme and it was not
willing to consider any conditional offer.
(b) Reject the request for compassionate appointment on the ground
that the employee was more than 55 years of age or on the
ground that it was not a deserving case or because there was no
vacancy, and then refer the employee to a Medical Board for
c
compulsory retirement on medical grounds.
(c) Require the employee to make separate applications for voluntary
retirement on medical grounds and for compassionate appointment
strictly as per rules and the scheme.
D
(d) Accept the request of the employee for voluntary retirement on
medical grounds subject to the condition stipulated by the
->" employee and provide appointment to his son on compassionate
~·
grounds;

When FCI accepted the offer unconditionally and retired the second respondent E
from service by office order dated 29.7.2000, it was implied that it accepted
the conditional offer in entirety, that is the offer made (voluntary retirement)
as also the condition subject to which the offer was made (appointment of
his dependant son on compassionate grounds). In his application, the second
respondent made it clear that he desired to retire voluntarily on medical
F
grounds only if his son (first respondent herein) was provided with
_..,. employment. If FCI felt that such a conditional application was contrary to
the Scheme or not warranted, it ought to have rejected the application.
Alternatively, it ought have informed the employee that the compassionate
appointment could not be given to his son because he (the employee) had
already completed 55 years of age and that it will consider his request for G
retirement on medical grounds delinking the said issue of retirement, from the
request for compassionate appointment. In that event, the employee would
\.
/ have had the option to withdraw his offer itself. Having denied him the
opportunity to withdraw the offer, and having retired him by accepting the
conditional offer, FCI cannot refuse to comply with the condition subject to
H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A which the offer was made.
12. The appellant next contended that when the employee stated in his " 1
application that he was medically unfit to continue his work as a handling
labour, and also produced a medical certificate from the concerned authority
declaring that he was medically unfit for the work, obviously he could not be
B continued up to the age of superannuation and therefore, acceptance of his
request for retirement of the second respondent by order dated 29.7.2000
could not in any event be faulted. This contention would have merited
acceptance, ifthe employee's offer to voluntarily retire was unconditional. An
employee is entitled to continue in service till the age of superannuation.
c Even ifhe is having some medical ailment, due to economic reasons, he may
choose to continue up to 60 years. If the employer found that the employee
was physically unfit to carry on his work, the employer was at liberty to refer
his case to a Medical Board and on the basis of its opinion, compulsorily
retire the employee on medical grounds. A compulsory. retirement by the
employer on medi.:al grounds is different from a voluntary retirement by the
D employee on medical grounds. In fact the scheme earlier provided for
compassionate appointment of a dependant, only when an employee was
(compulsorily) retired by the employer, on medical grounds. The scheme was
expanded on 3 .7 .1996, to provide for compassionate appointment for a ..(_
dependant, when an employee voluntarily retired on medical grounds.
~

E 13. The appellant next contended that even if its action was found to
suffer from some infirmity, the employee could at best contend that the action
retiring him from service with effect from 31.7.2000 was illegal, but it could not
be foisted with the obligation to offer employment to the son of the employee.
It is, therefore, submitted that even if any relief was to be given, it ought to
F have bem restricted to some nominal compensation for premature retirement
as at the end of 31.7.2000.
,,,...
14. The question in this case is not whether the request of the .-
respondents was contrary to the scheme. Nor is it the question, whether the
scheme would be violated if the first respondent is appointed on compassionate
G grounds. The limited question is whether FCl, having accepted the offer and
accepted performance of the offer by the second Respondent, can refuse to
perform or comply with the condition subject to which such offer was made.
The answer is obviously in the negative. Having accepted the offer, FCJ \
cannot avoid performance of the condition subject to which the offer was
made. As noticed earlier, nothing prevented FCI from rejecting the application
H
FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA v. RAM KESH VADA V [RAVEENDRAN. J.] 347

-
•
-f
of the employee outright, or inform the employee before accepting the offer A
of voluntary retirement that it could not accept the condition, so that the
employee would have had the option to withdraw the offer itself.

15. Lastly, it was pointed out that under the scheme, the competent
authority had the discretion to deny compassionate appointment even if all
the conditions were fulfilled; and that, therefore, the High Court ought to B
have merely directed consideration of the application for compassionate
appointment, instead of directing appointment. But the denial of employment
was not on the ground that the competent authority on considering the
j relevant circumstances, found that it was not a fit case for appointment on
compassionate grounds. It is true that in the normal course, if the employee's c
son was found eligible for employment on compassionate grounds, the court
ought to have directed consideration of his case in terms of the scheme
instead of issuing a mandamus to give employment. But as already observed,
the conditional offer having been accepted, FCI could not thereafter refuse
appointment. We also find that FCI did not dispute the fact that the first
respondent was eligible and suitable for the post of handling labour. Nor did D
FCI contend that there was no vacancy. The employee had retired in 2000.
For nearly 7 years, his son has been denied employment. On the peculiar
-)- facts, we do not find it appropriate to interfere with the direction given by
the High Court to appoint the first respondent, though for different reasons.
~
E
16. We have upheld the direction for grant of employment only because
of the acceptance of an inter-linked conditional offer. Where the offer to
voluntarily retire and request for compassionate appointment are not inter-
linked or conditional, FCI would be justified in considering and deciding each
request independently, even if both requests are made in the same letter or
application. Be that as it may. F

I 7. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. But neither the retired
--C.:' employee nor his son will, however, be entitled to claim any monetary or other
benefits on the ground of delay in issuing the offer of appointment. The
appellant is given two months' time from today to appoint first respondent
G
as per High Court's order. Parties to bear their respective costs.

N.J. Appeal dismissed.