Allahabad High Court
Lallu Ram vs F.C.I.Bara Khamba Lane And 5 Ors. on 30 July, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43176 Judgement Reserved on: 15.07.2025 Judgement Delivered on : 30.07.2025 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4122 of 2002 Petitioner :- Lallu Ram Respondent :- F.C.I.Bara Khamba Lane And 5 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Km.Ketki Srivastava,Mohammad Babar Khan,Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Veena Sinha,Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Shikhar Anand Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 5.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 to 5 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Loader in Talkatora Depot, Aishbagh, Lucknow. Further prayer is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner equal to sons of persons named at serial no. 2, 3 and 5, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, and not to discriminate in the matter of appointment on the post of Loader.
3. Bereft of unnecessary details the case set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's father namely Shri Dori Lal was working in the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as FCI) when he submitted an application dated 10.02.2000, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition, contending that he is suffering from paralysis and is unable to do the work of loading and thus he prayed for being retired on medical grounds and in his place, the petitioner to be appointed. The application for retirement on medical grounds was accepted by the FCI vide order dated 30.10.2000 which has been filed as annexure CA-4 to the counter affidavit dated 17.12.2022, to the extent that Shri Dori Lal was retired with effect from 09.02.2000 on medical grounds.
4. The petitioner staked his claim for compassionate appointment in terms of policy dated 03.07.1996, a copy of which is annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. The policy provides that the workers who seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds should apply within the age limit of 55 years for the purpose of availing the benefits of compassionate ground appointment and that the retirement on medical ground should be accompanied by medical certificate from Civil Surgeon / District Medical / Medical Officer of equal status.
5. Upon the petitioner not being appointed on compassionate grounds, the instant writ petition has been filed.
6. In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the FCI primarily two grounds have been taken namely (a) as per the scheme dated 03.07.1996 the workers seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds should apply within the age limit of 55 years and as the application of the petitioner's father was submitted beyond the age of 55 years rather the application was filed after Shri Dori Lal has crossed age of 56 years as such the benefit of the circular dated 03.07.1996 cannot be given and (b) Shri Dori Lal had not disclosed the petitioner's name as his son/dependent in the Cardex form dated 04.11.1995 while describing his family members rather only names of his wife, daughter and one son namely Chandrapal was mentioned without any description of the petitioner and thus it cannot be said that the petitioner is the son of Shri Dori Lal so as to be entitled for compassionate appointment.
7. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Khushi Lal and others vs Food Corporation of India and others, 2011 SCC OnLine All 2192 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India and others vs Nizamudin and another, (2010) 4 SCC 546.
8. Responding, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India and another vs Ram Kesh Yadav and another, (2007) 9 SCC 531 as well as judgement of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 4123 (SS) of 2020 in re: Kamlesh Kumar vs F.C.I. and others decided on 08.08.2012, a copy of which is annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit, to contend that the aspect of submitting application beyond the age of 55 years has already been considered both by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and the dependents have been held entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds and as such the aforesaid ground is no longer open to the respondents. Further, once the respondents have acted on the application for medical retirement consequently they cannot now say that the petitioner cannot be appointed on compassionate grounds.
9. So far as the petitioner not being son of Shri Dori Lal, reliance has been placed on various documents which have been filed alongwith supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 05.03.2025 whereby the School Leaving Certificate, Parivar Register, Voter ID card, Aadhar Card, domicile certificate, character certificate and income certificate have been annexed which all indicate the name of petitioner's father as Shri Dori Lal.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. From the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record it emerges that father of the petitioner Shri Dori Lal was working in the FCI. A policy dated 03.07.1996 was issued by the FCI giving recruitment procedure for appointment of next kin of departmental workers who seek retirement on medical grounds on their own request. The scheme provided that the workers who seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds should apply within the age limit of 55 years for the purpose of availing benefits of compassionate appointment.
12. The father of the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on medical grounds and prayed for appointment of his son i.e. the petitioner through his application dated 10.02.2000. No action was taken on the said application which has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court praying for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds on the post of Loader.
13. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents they have not found the case of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate grounds to be covered by the policy dated 03.07.1996. The reasons indicated are that (a) as per scheme dated 03.07.1996 the workers seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds should apply within the age limit of 55 years and as the application of the petitioner's father was submitted beyond the age of 55 years rather the application was filed after Shri Dori Lal has crossed age of 56 years as such benefit of circular dated 03.07.1996 cannot be given and (b) Shri Dori Lal had not disclosed the petitioner's name as his son/dependent in the Cardex form dated 04.11.1995 while describing his family members rather only names of his wife, daughter and one son namely Chandrapal was mentioned without any description of petitioner and thus it cannot be said that petitioner is son of Shri Dori Lal so as to be entitled for compassionate appointment
14. The petitioner has however indicated that applications for persons beyond the age of 55 years have been entertained by the respondents and persons have appointed on compassionate grounds.
15. In order to consider as to whether the policy dated 03.07.1996 would have any applicability upon the petitioner, the relevant provisions of policy are to be seen which so far as are applicable in the facts of the case are reproduced below:
"(I) The worker who seek voluntary retirement on medical ground should apply within the age limit of 55 years for the purpose of availing the benefits of compassionate ground appointment."
16. From perusal of condition I of the policy it is apparent that the worker who seeks voluntary retirement on medical grounds should apply within the age limit of 55 years for the purpose of availing the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds. Admittedly the petitioner's father Shri Dori Lal has applied after the age of 55 years for compassionate appointment and thus his case would not be covered by the policy dated 03.07.1996.
17. The petitioner has stated that various persons who have applied beyond the age of 55 years, their applications have been considered. However without entering into this aspect of the matter it would be pertinent to see as to what was contained in the application of the petitioner's father namely Shri Dori Lal.
18. For the sake of convenience the application of Shri Dori Lal is reproduced below:
"महोदय, निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी लकवा (पेरालेसिस) से पीड़ित हो गया है जो कि बोरा ढो नही सकता है मैने वरिष्ठ चिकित्साधिकारी भा०खा०नि० द्वारा चेकप कराया है। प्रार्थी को इन्होने बोरा ढोने मे अनफिट कर दिया है ।
अत : श्रीमान जी से निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी मेडिकल ग्राउन्ड पर रिटायर करके प्रार्थी के स्थान पर मेरे पुत्र लल्लूराम को रखने की कृपा की जाय ।
श्रीमान जी की महान कृपा होगी ।"
19. A perusal of aforesaid application would indicate that petitioner's father had prayed for being retired on medical grounds and for appointment of petitioner in his place. The respondents accepted retirement of petitioner's father on medical grounds vide order dated 20.10.2000 but did not pass any order on compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The ground urged by the petitioner is that once the respondents have acted upon the application for medical retirement of petitioner's father consequently they patently erred in not appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds.
20. In this regard reliance has been placed on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kesh Yadav (supra). The judgement of Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) has been distinguished by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent judgement of Nuzamudin (supra).
21. Though there are two judgements of this Court that have been cited by both learned counsels i.e. judgements of Kamlesh Kumar (supra) and Khushi Lal (supra) yet considering that Hon'ble Supreme Court has already considered a similar matter as such the Court now proceeds to consider the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) over which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner and incidentally has also been referred to by this Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumar (supra).
22. The application for voluntary retirement in the case of Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) as had been submitted by the employee of the FCI as stands reproduced by Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 4 of its order reads as under :
"Sub.: Appointment of my son Shri Ram Kesh in consideration of my retirement on medical grounds...
...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 abovenamed son would be provided with an employment in my 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 abovenamed son in my place as handling labour..."
23. In the case of Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) also the application for voluntary retirement had been filed beyond the age of 55 years. The application in the case of the Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) indicated that the employee had expressed his inability of carrying bags and desired to go on retirement on medical grounds if his son would be provided with an employment in his place as handling labour. The application for voluntary retirement was acted upon by the FCI but the compassionate appointment was rejected by the FCI by contending that the age limit of 55 years had been crossed. Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that FCI had acted upon application for voluntary retirement which was conditional i.e. it clearly provided that the employee desired to be retired on medical grounds if in his place his son would be appointed on compassionate grounds. In this view of the matter Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that it was a composite application for conditional voluntary retirement on medical grounds subject to appointment of his son in his place meaning thereby that in case compassionate appointment was not provided to his son he was not interested in pursuing his application for compassionate appointment. In this view of the matter Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal which was filed aggrieved against the Division Bench judgement of High Court which had directed for compassionate appointment. However, in the same judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that all the conditions prescribed in the scheme dated 03.07.1996 should be fulfilled and that it is still the matter of discretion of competent authority who may reject the request if there is no vacancy or if the circumstances and conditions of family of medically retired worker do not warrant grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Thus the application in the case of Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) for voluntary retirement vis a vis the application as submitted by petitioner's father in the instant case are clearly different.
24. This aspect of matter has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a subsequent judgement of Nizamudin (supra) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that in the case of Ram Kesh Yadav (supra) the application for voluntary retirement was a composite application i.e. the employee had made it clear that he desired to retire voluntarily on medical grounds only if his son was provided with employment. In the case of Nizamudin (supra) the application which was submitted by the employee concerned in pursuance to the scheme was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:
"Sub: Retirement on medical grounds and appointment of my son/close relatives on compassionate grounds.
I am working as HL in FSD Chandari Depot in Gang No. 15. My health is not good. Physically I face difficulty in sardar/manda/handling labour/ancillary job. I, therefore request that the management my kindly retire me on medial grounds and at the same time give appointment to my son/close relative Shri Md. Nuzamudin aged 28-2-1971 years (sic), in the family to look after us. He has promised to look after me and family after my retirement."
25. Considering the said application Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the application was neither conditional nor interlinked in as much as the words used "I therefore request that the management may kindly retire me on medical grounds and at the same time give appointment to my son" merely contained two requests i.e. permission to retire voluntarily on medical grounds and request for appointment of his son without in any interlinking and thus the application not being conditional, the son of the employee was not entitled for compassionate appointment.
26. For the sake of convenience the relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizamudin (supra) are reproduced below:
"The second respondent was an employee of the appellant, Food Corporation of India ("FCI", for short). His date of birth was 8-2-1943. On 16-2-1998, the second respondent gave a letter seeking retirement on medical grounds and appointment of his son on compassionate grounds. The said letter is extracted below:
"Sub: Retirement on medical grounds and appointment of son/close relatives on compassionate grounds.
I am working as HL in FSD Chandari Depot in Gang No. 15. My health is not good. Physically I face difficulty in sarder/manda/handling labour/ancillary job. I, therefore request that the management may kindly retire me on medical grounds and at the same time give appointment to my son/close relative Shri Md. Nizamuddin aged 28-2-1971 years (sic), in place as FSD Chandari in this depot, because there is no other person in the family to look after us. He has promised to look after me and family after my retirement."
(emphasis supplied)
2. In pursuance of it, after medical examination, FCI by its letter dated 29-4-2000 permitted the second respondent to retire with effect from 30-4-2000. Nearly three years later, on 19-2-2003, the first respondent who is the son of the second respondent submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. A fortnight later, on 8-3-2003, the respondents filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction to FCI to appoint the first respondent on compassionate grounds. By interim order dated 13-3-2003, the High Court directed the competent authority under FCI, to pass a speaking order on the said application.
3. In pursuance of it the competent authority passed an order dated 13-3-2003 the relevant portion of which is extracted below:
"With reference to the above subject, your application dated 19-2-2003 for appointment to the post of handling labour in FSD Chandari, Kanpur of Food Corporation of India, has been considered sympathetically in the light of interim order dated 13-3-2003 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and the judgment dated 2-8-2002 passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Petition No. 43714 of 2001, Raj Nath Yadav v. Food Corporation of India and also the departmental rules and circulars.
FCI Headquarters, New Delhi issued Circular No. IR/L/31(27)/87 dated 3-7-1996 contemplating norms for retirement on medical grounds as well the grant of benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependant of such employee who, at the time of application, was less than 55 years of age.
Since Suleman, who was working as handling labour at FSD Chandari of FCI, had applied for retirement on medical grounds vide application dated 16-2-1998, date of birth of the said employee, as per the record of the Department, being 8-2-1943, the employee concerned had crossed the prescribed age of 55 years by about 2 days. This fact has been corroborated by you in your application dated 19-2-2003. Therefore, as per the rules of the Department, your application cannot be entertained and your appointment on compassionate grounds is not possible. Hence your application is hereby rejected."
4. Subsequently, a learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 29-3-2005, dismissed the writ petition holding that the first respondent was not eligible for appointment in view of conditions of the Circular dated 3-7-1996. However, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents by judgment dated 18-3-2007 purporting to follow the decision of this Court in Food Corporation of India v. Ram Kesh Yadav [(2007) 9 SCC 531 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 559] . The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by special leave. The question for consideration is whether the first respondent is entitled to claim compassionate appointment under the relevant scheme.
5. FCI by its Circular dated 3-7-1996 extended the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependants of departmental workers who sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds subject to the following condition:
"The worker who seeks voluntary retirement on medical grounds should apply within the age-limit of 55 years for the purpose of availing the benefits of compassionate appointment. The retirement on medical ground should be accompanied by a medical certificate...."
6. The application for compassionate appointment had to be made in the prescribed form, within three months from the date of retirement. Compassionate appointment was to be given only in deserving cases, that is, where there was no earning member in the family of the retired worker, or where it was found that the financial benefits which were available to the worker on retirement would not be sufficient to meet the needs for running the family. The said scheme also provided that compassionate appointment was discretionary:
"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 account the circumstances and conditions of the family of the medically retired workers and also subject to availability of the vacancy."
7. The second respondent sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds on 16-2-1998, after completion of 55 years. As the scheme provided that benefit under it was available only if the worker sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds before completing the age of 55 years, the application for compassionate appointment was liable to be rejected. The High Court, however, held that the facts of the case were similar to the case of the applicant in Ram Kesh Yadav [(2007) 9 SCC 531 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 559] and having regard to the decision of this Court in that case, the first respondent was entitled to compassionate appointment.
8. In Ram Kesh Yadav [(2007) 9 SCC 531 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 559] , legal position under the Scheme dated 3-7-1996 was explained thus: (SCC pp. 535-36, para 10) "10. As rightly contended by FCI, the issue of voluntary retirement of an employee on medical grounds and the issue of compassionate appointment to a dependant 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 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 warrant grant of compassionate appointment to a dependant. Therefore, the observation of the High Court in Nizamuddin 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."
9. In Ram Kesh Yadav [(2007) 9 SCC 531 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 559] , the composite application dated 26-4-1999 of the employee seeking voluntary retirement on medical grounds stated:
"I desire to go on retirement on medical ground, if my abovenamed son would be provided with an employment in my place as handling labour."
10. In view of the peculiar wording of the letter seeking voluntary retirement this Court held that the aforesaid general principle will not apply and proceeded to hold as follows: (Ram Kesh Yadav case [(2007) 9 SCC 531 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 559] , SCC pp. 536-37, para 14) "14. When FCI accepted the offer unconditionally and retired the second respondent 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 grounds only if his son (the 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 to 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 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 which the offer was made."
But this Court made it clear that the above position was in an exceptional situation where the offer of voluntary retirement was inextricably interlinked and conditional upon his son being offered appointment and the employer accepted and acted upon the conditional offer.
11. This Court however reiterated the general rule as follows: (Ram Kesh Yadav case [(2007) 9 SCC 531 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 559] , SCC p. 538, para 19) "19. We have upheld the direction for grant of employment only because of the acceptance of an interlinked conditional offer. Where the offer to voluntarily retire and request for compassionate appointment are not interlinked 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."
(emphasis supplied)
12. In this case the offer of voluntary appointment in the application was neither conditional nor interlinked. The words used are "I therefore request that the management may kindly retire me on medical grounds and at the same time give appointment to my son". It merely contains two requests (that is, permission to retire voluntarily on medical grounds and request for appointment of his son), without any interlinking. Nor was the voluntary retirement conditional upon giving employment to his son. Therefore, Ram Kesh Yadav [(2007) 9 SCC 531 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 559] will not apply. Each request had to be considered on its own merits with reference to the rules/scheme applicable. When so done it is clear that the first respondent will not be entitled to compassionate appointment.
13. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restore the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition."
27. When the application submitted by the petitioner's father in the instant case is seen in the context of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizamudin (supra), it emerges that the application submitted by the petitioner's father was neither a conditional application nor interlinked rather was an application which contained two request i.e. permission to retire voluntarily on medical grounds and permission to request for appointment of his son, which thus makes the application clearly within the ambit of an application which has been considered in the case of Nizamudin (supra).
28. Incidentally the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizamudin (supra) has been considered by this court in the case of Khushi Lal (supra) over which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
29. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and as the application as submitted by the petitioner's father not being a composite application as such even if the respondents acted upon it and retired the petitioner's father on medical grounds, the same would not entail any right to the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizamudin (supra).
30. Considering the aforesaid there would not be any requirement by the Court to go into the aspect as to whether the petitioner is the son of Shri Dori Lal and as to whether the application for voluntary retirement could have been submitted after the age of 55 years.
31. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2025 J. K. Dinkar